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 indeterminism is empirically undetectable — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The hole indeterminism is empirically undetectable

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The original model <M, g, T> and the hole-shifted model <M, h*g, h*T> are empirically indistinguishable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two models are empirically indistinguishable, no observation can differentiate between them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle of the identity of indiscernibles implies that empirically indistinguishable models represent the same physical state of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If hole-shifted models represent identical physical situations, the 'indeterminism' is merely a notational artifact of the mathematical formalism, not a genuine physical underdetermination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Earman and Norton's own diagnosis suggests the hole argument motivates substantivalism's rejection, not genuine empirical indeterminism in the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Structural realism, as defended by Ladyman and French, holds that physical reality is constituted by structural relations rather than individual point-identities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under structural realism, diffeomorphically related models share identical relational structure and therefore describe no empirically distinct possibilities whatsoever.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If no distinct possibilities exist, the hole argument establishes formal underdetermination within a representational framework rather than genuine ontic indeterminism detectable or otherwise.
      ?

      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

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Related

    Earman and Norton's own diagnosis suggests the hole argument motivates substanti...If hole-shifted models represent identical physical situations, the 'indetermini...If no distinct possibilities exist, the hole argument establishes formal underde...If two models are empirically indistinguishable, no observation can differentiat...
    +4 moreShow less
    Leibniz's principle of the identity of indiscernibles implies that empirically i...Structural realism, as defended by Ladyman and French, holds that physical reali...The original model <M, g, T> and the hole-shifted model <M, h*g, h*T> are empiri...Under structural realism, diffeomorphically related models share identical relat...

    Similar

    The Earman-Norton hole argument shows that this separation introduces ...80%Without hole freeness, determinism can fail even in otherwise well-beh...75%Maximality alone does not guarantee hole freeness in the sense require...74%Washing out quantum stochasticity is not the same as the absence of qu...69%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: determinism-causal
    View source passageHide passage
    This is a form of indeterminism first highlighted by Earman and Norton (1987) as an interpretive philosophical difficulty for realism about GTR’s description of the world, especially the point manifold M. They showed that realism about the manifold as a part of the furniture of the universe (which they called “manifold substantivalism”) commits us to an automatic indeterminism in GTR (as described above), and they argued that this is unacceptable. (See the hole argument and Hoefer (1996) for o
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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