Authors
Jeremy Butterfield
Cambridge University
Abstract
I reject Norton and Earman's hole argument that spacetime substantivalism is incompatible with determinism. I reconcile these both technically and philosophically. There is a technical definition of determinism that is not violated by pairs of models of the kind used in the hole argument. And technicalities aside, the basic idea of determinism is not violated if we claim that at most one of the two models represents a possible world. This claim can be justified either by metrical essentialism, or by denying transworld identity for points: I prefer the latter
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
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: 71,464
External links

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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Bare Necessities.Shamik Dasgupta - 2011 - Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1):115-160.
Dark Matter = Modified Gravity? Scrutinising the Spacetime–Matter Distinction Through the Modified Gravity/ Dark Matter Lens.Niels C. M. Martens & Dennis Lehmkuhl - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 72:237-250.
Symplectic Reduction and the Problem of Time in Nonrelativistic Mechanics.Karim P. Y. Thébault - 2012 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (4):789-824.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

New Work for Counterpart Theorists: Determinism.Gordon Belot - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (2):185-195.
Holes, Haecceitism and Two Conceptions of Determinism.Joseph Melia - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):639--64.
Einstein Algebras and the Hole Argument.Jonathan Bain - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1073-1085.
The Hole Argument.John D. Norton - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:56 - 64.
David Lewis Meets Hamilton and Jacobi.Jeremy Butterfield - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1095-1106.
O tzw. argumencie dziury.Jerzy Gołosz - 2000 - Filozofia Nauki 1:35 - 72.
What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
A Defense of Local Miracle Compatibilism.Peter A. Graham - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 140 (1):65 - 82.
Einstein's Hole Argument.Alan Macdonald - 2001 - American Journal of Physics 69:223-225.
The Essence of Space-Time.Tim Maudlin - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:82 - 91.
Defending Lewis’s Local Miracle Compatibilism.Shane Oakley - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 130 (2):337-349.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-05-29

Total views
41 ( #278,796 of 2,520,436 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,718 of 2,520,436 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes