Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument
In a recent article, Halvorson and Manchak (Br J Philos Sci, Forthcoming) claim that there is no basis for the Hole Argument, because (in a certain sense) hole isometries are unique. This raises two important questions: (a) does their argument succeed?; (b) how does this formalist response to the Ho...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
2023
|
| _version_ | 1797113023441141760 |
|---|---|
| author | Menon, T Read, J |
| author_facet | Menon, T Read, J |
| author_sort | Menon, T |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | In a recent article, Halvorson and Manchak (Br J Philos Sci, Forthcoming) claim that there is no basis for the Hole Argument, because (in a certain sense) hole isometries are unique. This raises two important questions: (a) does their argument succeed?; (b) how does this formalist response to the Hole Argument relate to other recent responses to the Hole Argument in the same tradition—in particular, that of Weatherall (Br J Philos Sci 69(2):329–350, 2018)? In this article, ad (a), we argue that Halvorson and Manchak’s claim does not go through; ad (b), we argue that although one prima facie plausible reading would see Halvorson and Manchak as filling an important hole (no pun intended) in Weatherall’s argument, in fact this reading is implausible; there is no need to supplement Weatherall’s work with Halvorson and Manchak’s results. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:09:35Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:695abc20-6ad0-419f-87fb-0de57ff3a67f |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T03:57:51Z |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| publisher | Springer Nature |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:695abc20-6ad0-419f-87fb-0de57ff3a67f2024-03-26T10:47:31ZSome remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole ArgumentJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:695abc20-6ad0-419f-87fb-0de57ff3a67fEnglishSymplectic ElementsSpringer Nature2023Menon, TRead, JIn a recent article, Halvorson and Manchak (Br J Philos Sci, Forthcoming) claim that there is no basis for the Hole Argument, because (in a certain sense) hole isometries are unique. This raises two important questions: (a) does their argument succeed?; (b) how does this formalist response to the Hole Argument relate to other recent responses to the Hole Argument in the same tradition—in particular, that of Weatherall (Br J Philos Sci 69(2):329–350, 2018)? In this article, ad (a), we argue that Halvorson and Manchak’s claim does not go through; ad (b), we argue that although one prima facie plausible reading would see Halvorson and Manchak as filling an important hole (no pun intended) in Weatherall’s argument, in fact this reading is implausible; there is no need to supplement Weatherall’s work with Halvorson and Manchak’s results. |
| spellingShingle | Menon, T Read, J Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument |
| title | Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument |
| title_full | Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument |
| title_fullStr | Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument |
| title_full_unstemmed | Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument |
| title_short | Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument |
| title_sort | some remarks on recent formalist responses to the hole argument |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT menont someremarksonrecentformalistresponsestotheholeargument AT readj someremarksonrecentformalistresponsestotheholeargument |