Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’

DOI10.1093/bjps/axw012zbMath1400.83010arXiv1412.0303OpenAlexW2964175287MaRDI QIDQ4555034

James Owen Weatherall

Publication date: 19 November 2018

Published in: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0303

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Einstein's equations (general structure, canonical formalism, Cauchy problems) (83C05)

Related Items (17)

Representation and Spacetime: The Hole Argument Revisited ⋮ Sophistry about symmetries? ⋮ The landscape and the multiverse: what's the problem? ⋮ Invariance or equivalence: a tale of two principles ⋮ Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the hole argument ⋮ New perspectives on the hole argument ⋮ On representational capacities, with an application to general relativity ⋮ Regarding `Leibniz equivalence' ⋮ On representational redundancy, surplus structure, and the hole argument ⋮ The hole argument, take \(n\) ⋮ The hole argument against everything ⋮ On the continuity of geometrized Newtonian gravitation and general relativity ⋮ Fiber bundles, Yang-Mills theory, and general relativity ⋮ Validity of the Einstein hole argument ⋮ Deduction and definability in infinite statistical systems ⋮ Change in Hamiltonian general relativity with spinors ⋮ Why Not Categorical Equivalence?

This page was built for publication: Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’