Holes in the Role Argument

  • Graham Nerlich
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 236)


John Earman and John Norton claim that modern spacetime realists (substantivalists) face a new problem: a realist can’t also be a determinist. They argue this both separately (Earman 1989, Norton 1987) and together, notably, in Earman and Norton 1987. The problem has been tackled here and there, mainly in attempts to find a picture of determinism which evades the problem. (Butterfield 1987, 1989, Maudlin 1988).


Spatial Relation Constant Curvature Absolute Space Spacetime Theory Metaphysical Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Butterfield, J 1989. “The Hole Story” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butterfield, J 1987. “Substantivalism and Determinism”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. The Dubrovnik Papers. 2: 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Earman, J. 1979. “Was Leibniz a Relationist?” In P. French et. al. (eds.) Midwest Studies in Philosophy vol. IV. Studies in Metaphysics. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Earman, J 1986. A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Earman, J 1989 World Enough and Space-Time. Cambridge Mass: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  5. Earman, J and Norton, J. 1987. “What Price Substantivalism: The Hole Story” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 38: 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman, M. 1983 Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hawking, S. and Ellis, G.F.R. 1973 The Large Scale Structure of SapceTime. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maudlin, T. 1990 “Substances and Spacetime: what Aristotle would have said to Einstein” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. 21: 531–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mundy, B. 1983 “Relational Theories of Euclidean Space and Minkowski Space-Time” Philosophy of Science 50: 205–226.Google Scholar
  10. Nerlich, G. 1979 “What Can Geometry Explain?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 30: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nerlich, G. 1982 “Special Relativity is Not Based on Causality” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 33: 361–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nerlich, G. 1991 “How Euclidean Geometry Has Misled Metaphysics” Journal of Philosophy. LXXXVIII: 169–189.Google Scholar
  13. Norton, J. 1987 “Einstein, The Hole Argument and the Reality of Space”. In J. Forge (ed.). Measurement, Realism and Objectivity. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 153–188.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham Nerlich
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations