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 original model <M, g, T> and the hole-shifted model <... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The hole indeterminism is empirically undetectable

    The original model <M, g, T> and the hole-shifted model <M, h*g, h*T> are empirically indistinguishable

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?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.

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Related

    If two models are empirically indistinguishable, no observation can differentiat...The hole indeterminism is empirically undetectable

    Similar

    If two models are empirically indistinguishable, no observation can di...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Free Will & Foreknowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    75%
    The Earman-Norton hole argument shows that this separation introduces ...65%
    Under such a reframing, the parameter ε_s in the lens model would no l...64%
    The hole indeterminism is empirically undetectable64%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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

    Details

    Type
    premise
    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