Explaining Leibniz equivalence as difference of non-inertial appearances: Dis-solution of the Hole Argument and physical individuation of point-events
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (4):692-725 (2006)
”The last remnant of physical objectivity of space-time” is disclosed in the case of a continuous family of spatially non-compact models of general relativity (GR). The physical individuation of point-events is furnished by the autonomous degrees of freedom of the gravitational field, (viz, the Dirac observables) which represent -as it were -the ontic part of the metric field. The physical role of the epistemic part (viz. the gauge variables) is likewise clarified as embodying the unavoidable non-inertial aspects of GR. At the end the philosophical import of the Hole Argument is substantially weakened and in fact the Argument itself dis-solved, while a specific four-dimensional holistic and structuralist view of space-time (called oint-structuralism) emerges, including elements common to the tradition of both substantivalism and relationism. The observables of our models undergo real temporal change: this gives new evidence to the fact that statements like the frozen-time character of evolution, as other ontological claims about GR, are model dependent.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
John Earman & John Norton (1987). What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
John Earman (2002). Thoroughly Modern Mctaggart: Or, What Mctaggart Would Have Said If He Had Read the General Theory of Relativity. Philosophers' Imprint 2 (3):1-28.
Mauro Dorato (2000). Substantivalism, Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism. Foundations of Physics 30 (10):1605-1628.
Gordon Belot & John Earman (2001). Pre-Socratic Quantum Gravity. In Craig Callender & Nick Huggett (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale. Cambridge University Press 213--55.
Tian Yu Cao (2003). Can We Dissolve Physical Entities Into Mathematical Structures? Synthese 136 (1):57 - 71.
Citations of this work BETA
Alexander Afriat & Ermenegildo Caccese (2010). The Relativity of Inertia and Reality of Nothing. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 41 (1):9-26.
Similar books and articles
Tim Maudlin (1988). The Essence of Space-Time. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:82 - 91.
Michele Vallisneri & Massimo Pauri (2002). Ephemeral Point-Events: Is There a Last-Remnant of Physical Objectivity? Dialogos 37:263-304.
Luca Lusanna & Massimo Pauri, Dynamical Emergence of Instantaneous 3-Spaces in a Class of Models of General Relativity.
Luca Lusanna & Massimo Pauri, General Covariance and the Objectivity of Space-Time Point-Events: The Physical Role of Gravitational and Gauge Degrees of Freedom - DRAFT.
Kenneth L. Manders (1982). On the Space-Time Ontology of Physical Theories. Philosophy of Science 49 (4):575-590.
D. Dieks (2001). Space and Time in Particle and Field Physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (2):217-241.
Agustín Vicente (2004). The Overdetermination Argument Revisited. Minds and Machines 14 (3):331-47.
Carolyn Brighouse (1997). Determinism and Modality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):465-481.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads47 ( #86,989 of 1,792,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #47,136 of 1,792,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?