Spacetime substantivalism leads to a radical form of indeterminism within a very broad class of spacetime theories which include our best spacetime theory, general relativity. Extending an argument from Einstein, we show that spacetime substantivalists are committed to very many more distinct physical states than these theories' equations can determine, even with the most extensive boundary conditions.

In the article I subject to criticism Field's argument, according to which field theory takes space-time to be a substance, since it ascribes field properties to space-time points. The fundamental flaw of this argument, I suggest, is the incompatibility of Field's interpretation of field theory with the way this theory is understood and utilized by its users, namely scientists. My criticism is based on the assumption that one cannot propose an ontology of a given scientific theory and at the same (...) time imposing on it an interpretation which clashes with the interpretation current among its users. I also suggest that in order to establish the ontology of a scientific theory one should take into account not only the way it functions but also the way it has been constructed. According to this criterion, field theory does indeed take space-time to be a substance. (shrink)

Th author submits to a critical analysis the argument of the hole, which has been formulated by Einstein and later developed by Earman and Norton. The aim of the analysis is an evaluation of the assumption made in the argument and the possibility of avoiding its indeterministic consequences. It turns out that it is a particular form of substantivalism assumed by Earman and Norton which is responsible for the indeterministic consequences of the argument. It follows that those consequences can be (...) avoided by rejecting either substantivalism as a whole or its particular form accepted by both authors. None of the non-substantivalist interpretations proposed can be accepted, including also the one that Earman himself has tried to develop. The presented forms of the structural substantivalism and the substantivalism rejecting the transworld identification of points are hardly aceptable, either. Hence, there are two alternatives left: either one of the versions of essentialism or else instrumentalism, i.e. giving up doing ontology. Since the author regards instrumentalism as cognitively fruitless, he prefers the first option. (shrink)

In a recent article in this journal, Barbara Lariviere offers a very useful distinction between two ways of understanding the claims that Leibniz, or relational theorists in general, might wish to make about the nature of motion and the structure of space and time; viz., There is no real inertial structure to space-time.and There is a real inertial structure to space-time, but it is dynamical rather than absolute.Citing the authority of Weyl, the author argues that L1 is untenable; indeed, the (...) argument purports to show that if L1 were true, then there would be no coherent basis for a theory of motion, not even a relational theory. My main goal in this note is to point out why this argument is mistaken while at the same time sketching the real reason why the relational conception of motion is untenable. In addition I will offer a few remarks about the relevance of L2 to the absolute-relational controvery. (shrink)

The question concerning the ontic nature of space-time points and of space-time itself - is the question: are these objects set-theoretic sets or individuals, i.e. nonsets? Two classifications of the standpoints concerning the nature of these objects are formulated and then they are intersected. In concequence three standpoints appear: mereological substantivalism, set-theoretic substantivalism and set-theoretical relationism; it is showed that mereological relationism is not real. It is proved that set-theoretic standpoints logically imply so called set-theoretic realism which accepts the existence (...) of sets (if Quine's conception of existence is assumed). (shrink)