Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1073-1085 (2003)
|Abstract||Einstein algebras have been suggested (Earman 1989) and rejected (Rynasiewicz 1992) as a way to avoid the hole argument against spacetime substantivalism. In this article, I debate their merits and faults. In particular, I suggest that a gauge-invariant interpretation of Einstein algebras that avoids the hole argument can be associated with one approach to quantizing gravity, and, for this reason, is at least as well motivated as sophisticated substantivalist and relationalist interpretations of the standard tensor formalism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Norton (1988). The Hole Argument. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:56 - 64.
Carolyn Brighouse (1997). Determinism and Modality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):465-481.
Jeremy Butterfield (1988). Albert Einstein Meets David Lewis. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:65 - 81.
Dean Rickles (2005). A New Spin on the Hole Argument. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 36 (3):415-434.
J. Melia (1999). Holes, Haecceitism and Two Conceptions of Determinism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):639--64.
Robert Rynasiewicz (1996). Is There a Syntactic Solution to the Hole Problem? Philosophy of Science 63 (3):62.
Jonathan Bain (2003). Einstein Algebras and the Hole Argument. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1073-1085.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,563 of 740,452 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?