Menon, Tushar and Read, James
(2023)
Some remarks on recent formalist responses to the Hole Argument.
[Preprint]
Abstract
In a recent article, Halvorson and manchak claim that there is no basis for the Hole Argument, because (in a certain sense) hole isometries are unique. This raises two important questions: (a) does their argument succeed?; (b) how does this mathematical-cum-formalist response to the Hole Argument relate to other recent responses to the Hole Argument in the same tradition---in particular, that of Weatherall? In this article, ad (a), we argue that Halvorson and Manchak's claim does not go through; ad (b), we argue that although a charitable reading would see Halvorson and Manchak as filling an important hole (no pun intended) in Weatherall's argument, in fact this reading is implausible; there is no need to supplement Weatherall's work with Halvorson and Manchak's results.
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}