Philosophy of Science 63 (3):88 (1996)

Authors
Gordon Belot
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Abstract
There is a widespread impression that General Relativity, unlike Quantum Mechanics, is in no need of an interpretation. I present two reasons for thinking that this is a mistake. The first is the familiar hole argument. I argue that certain skeptical responses to this argument are too hasty in dismissing it as being irrelevant to the interpretative enterprise. My second reason is that interpretative questions about General Relativity are central to the search for a quantum theory of gravity. I illustrate this claim by examining the interpretative consequences of a particular technical move in canonical quantum gravity.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289939
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 52,893
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Substantivalism, Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism.Mauro Dorato - 2000 - Foundations of Physics 30 (10):1605-1628.
On the Existence of Spacetime Structure.Erik Curiel - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axw014.
Rehabilitating Relationalism.Gordon Belot - 1999 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (1):35 – 52.
The Analysis of Singular Spacetimes.Erik Curiel - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):145.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
91 ( #103,223 of 2,343,521 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #515,031 of 2,343,521 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes