Rings, holes and substantivalism: On the program of Leibniz algebras

Philosophy of Science 59 (4):572-589 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a number of publications, John Earman has advocated a tertium quid to the usual dichotomy between substantivalism and relationism concerning the nature of spacetime. The idea is that the structure common to the members of an equivalence class of substantival models is captured by a Leibniz algebra which can then be taken to directly characterize the intrinsic reality only indirectly represented by the substantival models. An alleged virtue of this is that, while a substantival interpretation of spacetime theories falls prey to radical local indeterminism, the Leibniz algebras do not. I argue that the program of Leibniz algebras is subject to radical local indeterminism to the same extent as substantivalism. In fact, for the category of topological spaces of interest in spacetime physics, the program is equivalent to the original spacetime approach. Moreover, the motivation for the program--that isomorphic substantival models should be regarded as representing the same physical situation--is misguided

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,343

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Substantivalism, Relationism, and Structural Spacetime Realism.Mauro Dorato - 2000 - Foundations of Physics 30 (10):1605-1628.
Spacetime and Holes.Carolyn Brighouse - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:117 - 125.
What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
133 (#170,261)

6 months
4 (#864,415)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Rynasiewicz
Johns Hopkins University

Citations of this work

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.
How to count structure.Thomas William Barrett - 2022 - Noûs 56 (2):295-322.
What Theoretical Equivalence Could Not Be.Trevor Teitel - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 178 (12):4119-4149.
Equivalent and Inequivalent Formulations of Classical Mechanics.Thomas William Barrett - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (4):1167-1199.

View all 39 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story.John Earman & John Norton - 1987 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
The identity of indiscernibles.Ian Hacking - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (9):249-256.
The Inscrutability of Reference.Donald Davidson - 1979 - Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 10 (2):7-19.
The lessons of the hole argument.Robert Rynasiewicz - 1994 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):407-436.

View all 8 references / Add more references