Erkenntnis 45 (1):25--43 (1996)
|Abstract||In this paper Modern Essentialism is used to solve a problem of individuation of spacetime points in General Relativity that has been raised by a New Leibnizian Argument against spacetime substantivalism, elaborated by Earman and Norton. An earlier essentialistic solution, proposed by Maudlin, is criticized as being against both the spirit of metrical essentialism and the fundamental principles of General Relativity. I argue for a modified essentialistic account of spacetime points that avoids those obstacles.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tim Budden (1997). Galileo's Ship and Spacetime Symmetry. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):483-516.
David J. Baker (2005). Spacetime Substantivalism and Einstein's Cosmological Constant. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1299-1311.
Martin Schmidt (2008). On Spacetime, Points, and Bare Particulars. Metaphysica 9 (1):69-77.
John Norton (1988). The Hole Argument. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:56 - 64.
Mauro Dorato, Is Structural Spacetime Realism Relationism in Disguise? The Supererogatory Nature of the Substantivalism/Relationism Debate.
Vincent Lam (2007). The Singular Nature of Spacetime. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):712-723.
John Earman & John Norton (1987). What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
Glenn Parsons & Patrick McGivern (2001). Can the Bundle Theory Save Substantivalism From the Hole Argument? Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S358-.
Jerzy Gołosz (2005). Structural Essentialism and Determinism. Erkenntnis 63 (1):73 - 100.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #58,654 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?