Journal of Philosophy 119 (5):233-278 (2022)
AbstractThe consensus among spacetime substantivalists is to respond to Leibniz's classic shift arguments, and their contemporary incarnation in the form of the hole argument, by pruning the allegedly problematic metaphysical possibilities that generate these arguments. Some substantivalists do so by directly appealing to a modal doctrine akin to anti-haecceitism. Other substantivalists do so by appealing to an underlying hyperintensional doctrine that implies some such modal doctrine. My first aim in this paper is to pose a challenge for all extant forms of this consensus position. My second aim is to show what form substantivalism must take in order to uphold the consensus while addressing this challenge. The result is a novel "plenitudinous" substantivalist view, which predicts that certain modal facts about spacetime are vague or indeterminate. I then argue against this view on independent grounds, concluding that substantivalists should reject the consensus position. The paper also discusses the way forward for substantivalists in light of this conclusion.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
New Work for a Theory of Universals.David K. Lewis - 1983 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (4):343-377.
Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time.Theodore Sider - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work
Spacetime Quietism in Quantum Gravity.Sam Baron & Baptiste Le Bihan - 2022 - In Antonio Vassallo (ed.), The Foundations of Spacetime Physics: Philosophical Perspectives. Routledge.
Similar books and articles
Holes in Spacetime: Some Neglected Essentials.Trevor Teitel - 2019 - Journal of Philosophy 116 (7):353-389.
The Hole Argument.John D. Norton - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:56 - 64.
Is Structural Spacetime Realism Relationism in Disguise? The Supererogatory Nature of the Substantivalism/Relationism Debate.Mauro Dorato - unknown
Can the Bundle Theory Save Substantivalism From the Hole Argument?Glenn Parsons & Patrick McGivern - 2001 - Philosophy of Science 68 (S3):S358-S370.
Spacetime and Holes.Carolyn Brighouse - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:117 - 125.
On the Ontology of Spacetime: Substantivalism, Relationism, Eternalism, and Emergence.Gustavo E. Romero - 2017 - Foundations of Science 22 (1):141-159.
The Hole Argument of the Substantivalism-Relationism Debate.Keiko Ichiye - 1996 - Dissertation, Indiana University
Super-Relationism: Combining Eliminativism About Objects and Relationism About Spacetime.Baptiste Le Bihan - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (8):2151-2172.
What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
Substantivalist and Relationalist Approaches to Spacetime.Oliver Pooley - 2013 - In Robert Batterman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics. Oxford University Press.
Holes, Haecceitism and Two Conceptions of Determinism.Joseph Melia - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):639--64.
Substantivalism, Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism.Mauro Dorato - 2000 - Foundations of Physics 30 (10):1605-1628.
WSZECHŚWIAT BLOKOWY W KONTEKŚCIE NOWEGO SUBSTANCJALIZMU CZASOPRZESTRZENNEGO.Damian Luty - 2015 - Hybris, Revista de FilosofíA (30):144-157.
Problem samodzielności stanowiska strukturalizmu czasoprzestrzennego.Damian Luty - 2016 - Semina Scientiarum 15:172-187.
Substantivalism and Relationism as Bad Cartography: Why Spatial Ontology Needs a Better Map.Edward Slowik - 2018 - In S. Wuppuluri & F. A. Doria (eds.), The Map and the Territory: Exploring the Foundations of Science, Thought and Reality. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 185-198.