Empirical structure physicalism and realism, Hempel's dilemma, and an optimistic meta-induction

Balazs Gyenis

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Empirical structure physicalism and realism, Hempel's dilemma, and an optimistic meta-induction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Empirical structure physicalism, the thesis that the current special sciences supervene on both current and future physics, avoids both horns of Hempel's dilemma.

desk verdict A genuinely new formal framework for physicalism with a valid transitivity argument, but the historical premise and the comparability of future theory change are not established, making the solution to Hempel's dilemma more conditional than advertised. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19834 v1 pith:DYSH3L4Z submitted 2025-07-26 physics.hist-ph

Balazs Gyenis This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.hist-ph

keywords Hempel'sdilemmaempiricalstructuretheorysuperveniencephysicalismoptimisticmeta-inductioncontentmultiplerealization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a way to state physicalism that is immune to Hempel's dilemma, the argument that physicalism must be tied either to an incomplete current physics or to an unknowable future physics. The proposed thesis, empirical structure physicalism, says that the current special sciences supervene on both current and future physics, where supervenience means that the empirical structure of physics refines the empirical structure of the special sciences. Empirical structure is the partition of space-time regions according to which regions have the same empirical content under a theory. The paper's central derivation is that the future half of the thesis follows deductively from the current half together with future empirical structure realism, the claim that future physics will refine the empirical structure of current physics, by transitivity of supervenience. An optimistic meta-induction from the history of physics is then offered as strong support for future empirical structure realism, so that physicalism can survive future theory change without betting on the ontology of current or unknown future physics.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the notion of empirical structure together with the relation of theory supervenience. A theory's empirical content at a space-time region is the set of that theory's history-descriptions which are empirically adequate to the region, allowing idealization, approximation, and localization; the theory's empirical structure is the partition of all space-time regions into cells of equal empirical content. Theory supervenience holds when one theory's empirical structure refines another's, so every empirical distinction drawn by the lower-level theory is also drawn by the higher-level one. This relation is transitive, and transitivity is what makes futurist empirical structure physicalism a deductive consequence of currentist empirical structure physicalism and future empirical structure realism. Because empirical structure is defined without reference to the ontology a theory suggests, refinement can persist through theory change even when entities and terms do not survive.

What would settle it

A concrete historical case in which a later, generally accepted theory of physics could not empirically distinguish a pair of space-time regions that an earlier accepted theory could distinguish, while no other accepted theory of that later period recovered the ability, would falsify past empirical structure realism and thereby remove the inductive basis for future empirical structure realism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that Hempel's dilemma can be solved by replacing the reductive relationship at the heart of physicalism: instead of relating entities or languages, empirical structure physicalism relates the empirical structures of theories. One theory supervenes on another exactly when the second theory's empirical structure refines the first's, meaning any pair of space-time regions the first theory can empirically distinguish is also distinguished by the second. Currentist empirical structure physicalism, the special sciences supervene on current physics, survives the incompleteness of current physics because it makes no claim that current physics is complete or that its ontology is final. Jointly with future empirical structure realism, transitivity of supervenience yields futurist empirical structure physicalism: the current special sciences remain empirically dispensable under any future physics that refines current physics' empirical structure. The paper further claims that future empirical structure realism is strongly supported by an optimistic meta-induction over the history of physics, and that this optimistic induction can coexist with the pessimistic meta-induction because it concerns retention of empirical structure rather than survival of entities.

Load-bearing premise

The crucial unproven premise is the historical generalization that up to the present, later physics has refined the empirical structure of earlier physics; the paper explicitly says length limitations prevent it from defending this premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Empirical structure physicalism states physicalism without committing to the ontology of current physics or of any unknown future physics.
If current physics refines the empirical structure of current mental theories, then future physics will too, so mental theories remain empirically dispensable in the future.
Empirical structure realism gives a cumulative account of theory change that can coexist with the pessimistic meta-induction, since it tracks empirical structure rather than entity survival.
Because empirical structure is independent of a theory's ontology, the thesis is compatible with multiple realization, including exotic future computers.
The thesis satisfies most of the standard desiderata for a physicalism thesis and addresses the knowledge-argument scenario by decoupling empirical adequacy from phenomenal knowledge.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's actualist definition of empirical structure could be extended to empirical possibility, turning empirical structure physicalism into a modal thesis rather than a claim only about the actual world.
The optimistic meta-induction, if accepted, suggests a general criterion for theory comparison: one empirically refined theory can be said to be preserved by its successor even when their formal structures are incommensurable.
The refinement relation between theories could in principle be tested on experimental records by checking whether every pair of regions a special science distinguishes is also distinguished by physics at the same precision.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Gyenis has written a serious and unusually clear paper. The core idea—define the empirical structure of a theory as the partition of spacetime regions by their empirical content, then say one theory supervenes on another if the second refines that partition—is genuinely new and gives a precise way to talk about empirical continuity across theory change. The transitivity derivation in Section 4 is correct, and the optimistic meta-induction is distinct from the pessimistic one in a way that is worth taking seriously. The paper also does a good job showing how empirical structure physicalism can coexist with multiple realization and with a kind of dualism.

The soft spots are where the reader's report says they are, plus one that matters more than the report suggests. First, the historical premise (Rp)—up to now later physics refined the empirical structure of earlier physics—is explicitly not defended. Length limitations are real, but this premise carries the entire optimistic meta-induction. The examples with Newton/GR and thermodynamics/stat mech are illustrative, not a defense. Second, and more worrying, is the comparability problem the stress-test note identifies. The whole framework defines empirical content relative to regions of 'our actual world,' formally submanifolds of GR spacetime. If future physics abandons spacetime, the empirical structure of future physics over those regions is not defined by the framework. The paper's Section 7 answers that we can expect submanifolds to supervene on the future locus concept 'analogously to how current physics supervenes on future physics.' But that is exactly what future empirical structure realism is supposed to establish—it is the conclusion, not a premise. So the optimistic meta-induction cannot license (Rf) for a theory that replaces the spacetime framework outright. The transitivity argument remains valid, but its reach is narrower than advertised.

The paper is honest about its limits: it says it argues for plausibility, not proof, of (Pc) and (Rp). But the abstract's claim to 'avoid both horns' overstates what the conditional derivation plus an undefended induction can deliver. For a reader working on physicalism or Hempel's dilemma, the paper is worth engaging; the formal notion of empirical structure may be useful in its own right. I would send it to peer review, primarily as a substantive proposal that needs to defend (Rp) and to say something principled about how empirical structure is defined across a change in the spacetime framework.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a formal notion of empirical content and empirical structure, defines theory supervenience as refinement of empirical structures, and argues that empirical structure physicalism (the conjunction of currentist and futurist theses, Pc and Pf) avoids Hempel's dilemma. The key derivation is that Pf follows from Pc and future empirical structure realism (Rf) by transitivity of theory supervenience. Rf is defended by an optimistic meta-induction from past empirical structure realism (Rp). The paper further argues that empirical structure physicalism satisfies most standard desiderata for physicalism, is compatible with multiple realization, and can coexist with the pessimistic meta-induction.

Significance. If successful, the paper would offer a new reductive relationship between special sciences and physics that sidesteps Hempel's dilemma without committing to the ontology of current or future physics. The formal framework is precise, the transitivity observation is correct, and the paper is admirably explicit about which premises are asserted and which are merely supported by plausibility arguments. The distinction between empirical structure and formal content is a useful contribution, and the application to mental theories is clearly illustrated. However, the main thesis rests on an unestablished historical premise and on an unresolved comparability problem across future theory change, so the significance is conditional on further work.

major comments (4)

[Section 5] The argument for future empirical structure realism (Rf) is the optimistic meta-induction from (Rp), but the paper explicitly states that 'Length limitations prevent me from defending the historical premise here' and offers only illustrative examples (equant/epicycle, Newton/GR). Since (Pf) is obtained from (Pc) and (Rf), and (Rf) is what blocks the second horn of Hempel's dilemma, the central claim that empirical structure physicalism avoids both horns is conditioned on an unestablished empirical generalization. To make the main claim, the historical premise needs a systematic defense, or the conclusion must be explicitly weakened to a conditional claim.
[Section 7] The definition of empirical content e^T_R in Section 3.1 presupposes that R is a region of our actual world, formally a submanifold of GR spacetime. Future empirical structure realism requires comparing e^{current}_R with e^{future}_R for the same R. If a future theory replaces spacetime itself, its history-descriptions may not be localizable to GR submanifolds, making e^{future}_R empty for every R and future structure trivial. The paper's response that the submanifold notion will supervene on a future locus concept 'analogously to how current physics supervenes on future physics' is precisely an instance of the thesis to be established, not an independent premise. The meta-induction from past theory changes cannot license this, because past changes such as Newton to GR preserved a spacetime framework. Without an account of how empirical contents are assigned across frameworks, (Rf) is not a well-defined a posteriori thesis.
[Section 3.1] The definition of empirical adequacy depends on 'certain selected observable aspects of happenings', admissible idealizations, and an approximation level. These choices are not fixed by the theory, yet the supervenience relation and the physicalism theses are stated as categorical claims. Different choices can change whether e^T_R1 = e^T_R2, and hence whether one structure refines another; a sufficiently coarse choice of aspects can make any two theories supervene trivially. The paper should either provide a principled criterion for selecting these parameters or explicitly relativize (Pc), (Pf), and (Rf) to a parameter choice and show that the conclusions hold for natural choices.
[Section 6.2] The plausibility argument for (Pc) appears to assume what it needs to show. The claim that 'no measurement method exists for current special sciences whose different outcomes would not manifest in a difference of empirical contents of current physics' is, in effect, the supervenience thesis restated in operational terms. The room example illustrates the thesis but does not provide independent evidence for it. Since (Pc) is a conjunct of (P), the paper should either present independent evidence or be explicit that (P) is defended only as a package whose overall plausibility is inherited from (Rp).

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.3] The empirical structure e^T is defined as a partition over all subsets R of M, but the examples and applications only consider connected, bounded space-time regions; the formal definition should either restrict to a well-defined class of regions or explain why arbitrary subsets are admissible.
[Section 6.3] The multiple realization example conflates 'computer science supervenes on some physics theory' with 'the same special science is realized by different physical bases'; the fact that hypothetical GR-computers supervene on GR and quantum-sized computers on QM does not by itself show that current computer science is multiply realized, and this should be clarified.
[Section 5] The reply to Kuhn losses dismisses explanatory losses as irrelevant, but since the historical premise (Rp) concerns empirical structure alone, the author should explain more explicitly why explanatory losses cannot indirectly affect judgments of empirical adequacy.
[Throughout] The text contains numerous encoding artifacts and typographical slips (for example, 'T ˝ozs´er', 'H ¨orzer', and a duplicated 'that that'), which should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the central inference is genuine transitivity, with an explicitly unproved historical premise as the main weakness.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular by construction. Futurist empirical structure physicalism (Pf) is derived from currentist empirical structure physicalism (Pc) plus future empirical structure realism (Rf) by transitivity of the theory supervenience relation, which is defined independently as refinement of empirical structures; this is a genuine logical consequence, not a restatement of the conclusion. Rf itself is supported by an optimistic meta-induction from the historical premise Rp, which the paper explicitly admits it does not defend: 'Length limitations prevent me from defending the historical premise here' (Section 5). An unproven empirical premise is a serious evidential gap, but it is not circularity. The Section 7 discussion of future locus concepts asserts, rather than derives, that GR submanifolds will supervene on a future theory's locus concept; this assumption is analogous to a future-directed instance of the target supervenience claim, and could be challenged as question-begging in response to the objection, but it is not built into the definitions of empirical content, empirical structure, or theory supervenience, and it does not make the main derivation equivalent to its inputs. The self-citations in the paper (Gyenis 2022, the Hungarian earlier version; Gyenis 2025, on possibility) are background or auxiliary discussions and are not load-bearing for the main argument. Overall, no enumerated circularity pattern is exhibited, so the score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citation rather than any actual circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are invented; empirical structure and theory supervenience are analytical constructs. The formal framework introduces non-numeric choices in the definition of empirical adequacy, listed as a free parameter. The remaining premises are empirical and sociological assumptions about scientific practice plus a newly proposed epistemic principle.

free parameters (1)

Empirical adequacy selection (observable aspects, admissible idealization, approximation level)
Empirical content e^T_R is defined only after choosing which aspects are represented, which idealizations are admissible, and what counts as approximation; these choices are pragmatic and theory-relative (Section 3.1), and they can change the resulting empirical structure.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Competent users can recognize the history-descriptions of a theory and agree on their empirical content.
Invoked in Section 3.1, where a sociological view is allowed as a fallback; Section 5 says mature theory's practitioners usually agree on empirical content differences, which (Rp) needs.
domain assumption Past empirical structure realism: up to the present, later physics refined the empirical structure of earlier physics.
Section 5 states the historical premise (Rp) and admits 'Length limitations prevent me from defending the historical premise here'; the whole optimistic meta-induction depends on it.
domain assumption The sociology of physics licenses the induction: physicists will not completely discard an empirically successful differentiation theory.
Section 5 and footnote 10 use this material fact to support (Rf) via Norton's material theory of induction; it is asserted, not established.
ad hoc to paper Occam's Contrastive Razor: low confidence in an entity that exists in one region but not in another when no current empirical theory distinguishes the regions.
Introduced in Section 6.2 as an assumed epistemic principle to make belief in both metaphysical dualism and empirical structure physicalism indefensible; it is not derived from prior literature.
domain assumption The future locus concept of any future physics will supervene on the current GR submanifold notion of space-time regions.
Section 7 assumes future physics will recover GR spacetime in a limit, citing Wüthrich 2017, so that empirical structure physicalism remains meaningful under radical theory change.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Empirical structure physicalism and realism, Hempel's dilemma, and an optimistic meta-induction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYSH3L4Z

@misc{pith2026250719834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Empirical structure physicalism and realism, Hempel's dilemma, and an optimistic meta-induction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYSH3L4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19834}
}

read the original abstract

Motivated by a generalization of Hempel's dilemma, I introduce a novel notion of empirical structure, as well as theory supervenience as a new reductive relationship between theories. One theory supervenes on another theory if the empirical structure of the latter theory refines the empirical structure of the former theory. I then argue that (1) empirical structure physicalism, the thesis that the current special sciences supervene both on current and on future physics, avoids both horns of Hempel's dilemma; (2) in particular, mental theories remain empirically dispensable in the future; (3) empirical structure realism, the thesis that earlier theories of physics supervene on later theories of physics, is supported by an optimistic meta-induction; (4) this optimistic meta-induction can coexist with the well-known pessimistic meta-induction; (5) empirical structure physicalism is appropriately labeled as a type of physicalism; and (6) empirical structure physicalism is compatible with multiple realization. To illustrate the plausibility of empirical structure physicalism, I also briefly address the so-called knowledge argument.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

Buzaglo, D. (2024). Two construals of Hempel's dilemma: a challenge to physicalism, not dualism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science\/ 14\/ (26), 1--17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00590-9

work page doi:10.1007/s13194-024-00590-9 2024
[2]

Chalmers, D. J. and K. J. McQueen (2022). Consciousness and the collapse of the wave function. In S. Gao (Ed.), Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics , pp.\ 11--63. New York: Oxford Academic Press. Quote based on their paper deposited as arXiv:2105.02314: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.02314

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.02314 2022
[3]

Crane, T. and D. H. Mellor (1990). There is no question of physicalism. Mind\/ 99 , 185--206. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCIX.394.185

work page doi:10.1093/mind/xcix.394.185 1990
[4]

Earman, J. (1989). World enough and space-time . Cambridge: The MIT Press

work page 1989
[5]

Gyenis, G

Fazekas, P., B. Gyenis, G. Hofer-Szab\'o, and G. Kert\'esz (2021). A dynamical systems approach to causality. Synthese\/ 198\/ (7), 6065--6087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02451-y

work page doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02451-y 2021
[6]

Hemmo, and O

Firt, E., M. Hemmo, and O. Shenker (2022). Hempel's dilemma: not only for physicalism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science\/ , 1--29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2041969

work page arXiv 2022
[7]

Forrest, P. (2010). The identity of indiscernibles. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible (2022.06.26.)

work page 2010
[8]

Frigg, R. (2022). Models and theories . London: Routledge

work page 2022

Show all 41 references

[9]

G\"om\"ori, M. (2020). On the very idea of distant correlations. Foundations of Physics\/ 50 , 530--554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00332-w

2020 doi
[10]

Gyenis, B. (2022). Elm\'elet-szuperveniencia fizikalizmus \'es a fizika j\"ov o beli v\'altoz\'asai. Magyar Filoz\'ofiai Szemle\/ 66\/ (2022/3), 41--66. (in Hungarian)

2022
[11]

Gyenis, B. (2023). Az igazs\'ag harmadik pillanata. K\"ul\"onbs\'eg\/ 23\/ (1), 165--183. https://doi.org/10.14232/kulonbseg.2023.23.1.313

2023 doi
[12]

Gyenis, B. (2025). Physical, empirical, and conditional inductive possibility. Philosophy of Physics\/ 3\/ (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.31389/pop.148

2025 doi
[13]

Halvorson, H. (2019). The logic in philosophy of science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

2019
[14]

Hemmo, M. and O. R. Shenker (2022). Flat physicalism. Theoria\/ 88 , 743--764

2022
[15]

Hempel, C. G. (1969). Reduction: ontological and linguistic facets. In H. Feigl and W. Sellars (Eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis , pp.\ 373--384. New York: Appleton Century Crofts

1969
[16]

Hempel, C. G. (1980). Comments on Goodman's ways of worldmaking. Synthese\/ 45\/ (2), 193--199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413558

1980 doi
[17]

H\"orzer, G. M. (2020). Understanding physicalism . Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter

2020
[18]

Ladyman, J. (2023). Structural realism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\/ . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/ (Summer 2023 ed.)

2023
[19]

Lycan, W. (2003). Chomsky on the mind-body problem. In L. M. Anthony and N. Horstein (Eds.), Chomsky and his Critics , pp.\ 11--28. Oxford: Blackwell

2003
[20]

M\'arton, M. (2019). Mi a ``fizikai''? k\'is\'erletek a ``fizikai'' fogalm\'anak meghat\'aroz\'as\'ara a kort\'ars fizikalizmusvit\'aban. Elpis\/ 2019\/ (1), 79--106

2019
[21]

Melnyk, A. (1997). How to keep the `physical' in physicalism. Journal of Philosophy\/ 94\/ (12), 622--637. https://doi.org/10.2307/2564597

1997 doi
[22]

Nida-R\"umelin, M. and D. O. Conaill (2019). Qualia: The knowledge argument. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge (2022.06.26.)

2019
[23]

Norton, J. (2003). A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science\/ 70\/ (4), 647--670. https://doi.org/10.1086/378858

2003 doi
[24]

Norton, J. (2019). The hole argument. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg (2022.06.26.)

2019
[25]

Norton, J. D. (2022). How to make possibility safe for empiricists. In Y. Ben-Menahem (Ed.), Rethinking the Concept of Law of Nature , Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96775-8_5

2022 doi
[26]

Nye, M. J. (1980). N-rays: An episode in the history and psychology of science. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences\/ 11\/ (1), 125--156. https://doi.org/10.2307/27757473

1980 doi
[27]

Rabin, S. (2019). Nicolaus Copernicus. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus (2022.06.26.)

2019
[28]

Shech, E. (2019). Historical inductions meet the material theory. Philosophy of Science\/ 86\/ (5), 918--929. https://doi.org/10.1086/705524

2019 doi
[29]

Siegel, S. (2024). The contents of perception. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\/ . https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/perception-contents/ (Fall 2024 ed.)

2024
[30]

Smart, J. J. (1978). The content of physicalism. Philosophical Quarterly\/ 28\/ (113), 339--341. https://doi.org/10.2307/2219085

1978 doi
[31]

Stoljar, D. (2021). Physicalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism (2022.06.26.)

2021
[32]

Szab\'o, L. (2017). Meaning, truth, and physics. In G. Hofer-Szab\'o and L. Wro\'nski (Eds.), Making it Formally Explicit . Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55486-0_9

2017 doi
[33]

Szab\'o, L. (2021). Physicalism without the idols of mathematics. PhilSci Archive preprint, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18901

2021
[34]

T o zs\'er, J. (2023). The failure of philosophical knowledge . Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury Publishing

2023
[35]

van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image . Oxford: Oxford University Press

1980
[36]

Veronen, V. (1992). A weakness in Kuhn's regal argument. Science & Technology Studies\/ 5\/ (1), 47--51. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55049

1992 doi
[37]

von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics . Princeton: Princeton University Press. Translated by R. T. Beyer, 1955

1932
[38]

Votsis, I. (2011). Structural realism: continuity and its limits. In A. Bokulich and P. Bokulich (Eds.), Scientific Structuralism . Dordrecht: Springer

2011
[39]

Wigner, E. (1962). Remarks on the mind-body question. In I. J. Good (Ed.), The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-baked Ideas . London: William Heinemann Ltd

1962
[40]

Winther, R. G. (2020). The structure of scientific theories. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/ (Spring, 2021 ed.)

2020
[41]

W\"utrich, C. (2017). Raiders of the lost spacetime. In D. Lehmkuhl, G. Schiemann, and E. Scholz (Eds.), Towards a Theory of Spacetime Theories , Volume 13 of Einstein Studies . New York: Birkh\"auser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3210-8_11

2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Buzaglo, D. (2024). Two construals of Hempel's dilemma: a challenge to physicalism, not dualism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science\/ 14\/ (26), 1--17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00590-9

work page doi:10.1007/s13194-024-00590-9 2024

[2] [2]

Chalmers, D. J. and K. J. McQueen (2022). Consciousness and the collapse of the wave function. In S. Gao (Ed.), Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics , pp.\ 11--63. New York: Oxford Academic Press. Quote based on their paper deposited as arXiv:2105.02314: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.02314

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.02314 2022

[3] [3]

Crane, T. and D. H. Mellor (1990). There is no question of physicalism. Mind\/ 99 , 185--206. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCIX.394.185

work page doi:10.1093/mind/xcix.394.185 1990

[4] [4]

Earman, J. (1989). World enough and space-time . Cambridge: The MIT Press

work page 1989

[5] [5]

Gyenis, G

Fazekas, P., B. Gyenis, G. Hofer-Szab\'o, and G. Kert\'esz (2021). A dynamical systems approach to causality. Synthese\/ 198\/ (7), 6065--6087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02451-y

work page doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02451-y 2021

[6] [6]

Hemmo, and O

Firt, E., M. Hemmo, and O. Shenker (2022). Hempel's dilemma: not only for physicalism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science\/ , 1--29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2022.2041969

work page arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Forrest, P. (2010). The identity of indiscernibles. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible (2022.06.26.)

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Frigg, R. (2022). Models and theories . London: Routledge

work page 2022