Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Maximality alone does not guarantee hole freeness in the sense required to prevent causal determinism from failing prior to any consideration of time machines.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geroch (1977) established that maximal spacetimes can still admit naked singularities that disrupt global hyperbolicity without violating maximality conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If maximality already excludes the most physically relevant pathological spacetimes, the residual cases lacking hole freeness are physically unrealizable edge cases that do not threaten causal determinism in any robust sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A condition that fails only in physically degenerate or measure-zero cases cannot be said to genuinely undermine causal determinism as a foundational physical principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Earman and Norton's hole argument demonstrates that diffeomorphic equivalence classes, not individual spacetime models, are the proper locus of physical content in general relativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If physically meaningful spacetime structure is invariant under the relevant isometric embeddings, then the technical failure of hole freeness within a maximality framework reflects a representational artifact rather than a genuine breakdown of determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Maximality rules out surgically mutilated spacetimes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Maximality does not rule out all spacetimes that lack hole freeness in the technically defined sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hole freeness requires that the future domain of dependence of a spacelike hypersurface cannot be isometrically embedded as a proper subset of the future domain of dependence of its image in another spacetime.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.