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
    The hole argument, revived by Earman and Norton (1987), s... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

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

    ?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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective