In a recent article, Halvorson and Manchak (Br J Philos Sci, Forthcoming) 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 formalist response to the Hole Argument relate to other recent responses to the Hole Argument in the same tradition—in particular, that of Weatherall (Br J Philos Sci 69(2):329–350, 2018)? In this article, _ad_ (a), we argue (...) that Halvorson and Manchak’s claim does not go through; _ad_ (b), we argue that although one _prima facie_ plausible 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. (shrink)

In support of their contention that it is the absence of a subsisting medium that imbues the speed of light with fundamentality, Bryan Cheng and James Read discuss certain “fishbowl universes” in which physical influences evolve, not at the speed of light, but that of sound. The Lorentz transformation simulated in these sonic universes, which the authors cite from the literature of analogue gravity, is not that of Einstein, for whom an aether was “superfluous”, but that of the earlier relativity (...) of Lorentz and Poincaré, which did suppose such a medium. The authors’ intention is not to argue analogically, but simply to contrast the situation of light with that of sound. However, I argue that these universes are too successful as analogues to support the authors’ case. By reducing Lorentzian relativity to its bare essentials, they provide a compelling demonstration of the viability and explanatory strengths of the earlier theory. They show how a thoroughly wave-theoretic treatment of the elementary particles would explain why all aspects of matter transform in like manner, thereby avoiding a difficulty that was a significant reason for the demise of Lorentzian relativity after 1905. Importantly, these sonic universes suggest a unifying explanation, not only of the Lorentz transformation and de Broglie wave, but of the principle of relativity, which was merely postulated, rather than explained, by Einstein in 1905. (shrink)

In a recent article in this journal, Sus purports to account for what have been identified as the ‘two miracles’ of general relativity—that (1) the local symmetries of all dynamical equations for matter fields coincide, and (2) the symmetries of the dynamical equations governing matter fields coincide locally with the symmetries of the metric field—by application of the familiar result that every symmetry of the action is also a symmetry of the resulting equations of motion. In this reply, we argue (...) that, while otherwise exemplary in its clarity, Sus’ paper fails in this regard, for it rests upon a illegitimate application of the aforementioned result. Thus, we conclude, pace Sus, that these two miracles persist in general relativity. (shrink)

I critically discuss two dogmas of the “dynamical approach” to spacetime in general relativity, as advanced by Harvey Brown [Physical Relativity Oxford:Oxford University Press] and collaborators. The first dogma is that positing a “spacetime geometry” has no implications for the behavior of matter. The second dogma is that postulating the “Strong Equivalence Principle” suffices to ensure that matter is “adapted” to spacetime geometry. I conclude by discussing “spacetime functionalism”. The discussion is presented in reaction to and sympathy with recent work (...) by James Read [“Explanation, geometry, and conspiracy in relativity theory” Thinking about Spacetime Boston: Birkäuser]. (shrink)