As Earman and Norton argued, hole argument considerations show that no set of equations in GR uniquely evolves spacetime, collapsing the constraint/evolution distinction ontologically.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Determines one single way that space and time must change over the future; without this, you can't predict what spacetime will look like next.
hole argument(Later recognized by Einstein himself in 1915 to be based on a false premise)
Einstein's 1913 argument that generally covariant field equations permit two different solutions in a matter-free and energy-free region of spacetime (a 'hole'), where the two solutions assign different values of the metric tensor to the same spacetime point, allegedly violating univocalness
ontologically(contrasted with semantically in the statement)
Relating to what actually exists or is real, rather than just what words mean or how we talk about things.