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
    One could have good scientific reasons for favouring eith... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    One could have good scientific reasons for favouring either substantivalism or relationalism.

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • If a particular method (retaining or eliminating symmetries) were shown to be successful in the quest for quantizing gravity, that method's associated ontology would be scientifically supported.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Empirically equivalent theories can differ radically in ontological commitments, so scientific success cannot adjudicate between substantivalism and relationalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The hole argument, revived by Earman and Norton (1987), shows that diffeomorphism invariance renders substantivalist spacetime points indistinguishable by any physical observable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If no physical observable can distinguish competing ontologies, scientific reasons cannot favor one over the other—only metaphysical criteria remain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantization procedures (canonical, path integral, spin foam) yield structurally different theories, so methodological success in one approach does not generalize to a unified ontological verdict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since the success of a quantization method is theory-relative rather than interpretation-neutral, P1's conditional cannot ground a general scientific reason favoring either ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Empirically equivalent theories can differ radically in ontological commitments,...If a particular method (retaining or eliminating symmetries) were shown to be su...If no physical observable can distinguish competing ontologies, scientific reaso...Quantization procedures (canonical, path integral, spin foam) yield structurally...
    +2 moreShow less
    Since the success of a quantization method is theory-relative rather than interp...The hole argument, revived by Earman and Norton (1987), shows that diffeomorphis...

    Similar

    Kant endorses structuralism about physics, holding that only relationa...74%Such reasons are likely connected to normative considerations rather t...71%Helmholtz's view is not fully captured by contemporary relationalism a...71%Davidson holds that there are constitutive a priori principles underly...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: quantum-gravity
    View source passageHide passage
    One area that philosophers might profit from is in the investigation of the relational observables that appear to be necessitated by diffeomorphism invariance. For example, since symmetries (such as the gauge symmetries associated with the constraints) come with quite a lot of metaphysical baggage attached (as philosophers of physics know from the hole argument), such a move involves philosophically weighty assumptions. For example, the presence of symmetries in a theory would appear to allow
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit