Mathematical Responses to the Hole Argument: Then and Now

&
Philosophy of Science 89 (5):1223-1232 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We argue that several apparently distinct responses to the hole argument, all invoking formal or mathematical considerations, should be viewed as a unified “mathematical response.” We then consider and rebut two prominent critiques of the mathematical response before reflecting on what is ultimately at issue in this literature.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1017/psa.2022.58

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’.James Owen Weatherall - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (2):329-350.
Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’.James Owen Weatherall - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axw012.
The Hole Argument.Oliver Pooley - 2021 - In Eleanor Knox & Alastair Wilson (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Physics. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 145-158.
Disregarding the 'Hole Argument'.Bryan W. Roberts - unknown
On Representational Redundancy, Surplus Structure, and the Hole Argument.Clara Bradley & James Owen Weatherall - 2020 - Foundations of Physics 50 (4):270-293.
Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) hole argument.James Owen Weatherall - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 70:79-87.
Regarding `Regarding the `Hole Argument''.Tushar Menon, Thomas Moller-Nielsen & James Read - unknown
The Hole Argument of the Substantivalism-Relationism Debate.Keiko Ichiye - 1996 - Dissertation, Indiana University
Is there a syntactic solution to the hole problem?Robert Rynasiewicz - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):62.
The Hole Argument in Homotopy Type Theory.James Ladyman & Stuart Presnell - 2020 - Foundations of Physics 50 (4):319-329.
New Perspectives on the Hole Argument.Bryan W. Roberts & James Owen Weatherall - 2020 - Foundations of Physics 50 (4):217-227.
Grounding and the indispensability argument.David Liggins - 2016 - Synthese 193 (2):531-548.
Regarding ‘Leibniz Equivalence’.Bryan W. Roberts - 2020 - Foundations of Physics 50 (4):250-269.
Holes, haecceitism and two conceptions of determinism.Joseph Melia - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):639--64.
On the Mathematics and Metaphysics of the Hole Argument.Oliver Pooley & James Read - forthcoming - The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-06-10

Downloads
60 (#262,432)

6 months
18 (#135,061)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

James Weatherall
University of California, Irvine
Clara Bradley

Citations of this work

Counterparts, Determinism, and the Hole Argument.Franciszek Cudek - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Between a Stone and a Hausdorff Space.Jingyi Wu & James Weatherall - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references