 strongly deterministic. The possibility is certainly unfamiliar and faces difficult challenges, but it deserves careful and critical scrutiny. I hope the picture outlined above is interesting enough to provoke further explorations on this topic. There is an interesting connection between the cosmic void scenario and the ontologist nihilist's picture of a fundamental ontology without any objects. According to ontological nihilism, there are no objects at the fundamental level. This view is discussed in, for example, (Hawthorne & Cortens 1995) and (Turner 2010). Dasgupta (2009) develops a related view where facts involving individual objects are paraphrased away. Maxwell (2019) also develops a closely related view according to which objects do not play an indispensable role in metaphysics. In the nihilist / anti-object framework, ordinary sentences involving objects are to be paraphrased in terms of non-objectual language that does not ontologically commit us to the existence of objects. The cosmic void scenario is compatible with that picture, but the two approaches are quite different. The heavy lifting in the cosmic void scenario is done not by revising logic or semantics, but by using a particular kind of physical theory to derive non-fundamental facts about matter from fundamental laws alone. Hence, the cosmic void possibility is at the same time more radical and more modest. It is more radical in that we do not postulate even fundamental properties, general facts, bare facts, or structural facts (Ladyman et al. 2007) in the fundamental ontology. It is more modest in that the strategy is not supposed to work in general, but only in some special physical theories where strong determinism holds. Hence, we have two potential strategies for getting rid of fundamental material ontology: the metaphysical strategy and the scientific strategy. Both are difficult positions to defend. On the metaphysical side, we need to show that the relevant kind of semantic and logical maneuver results in a satisfactory paraphrase of the original object-language. On the scientific side, we need to show that (1) the actual laws are strongly deterministic and (2) a strongly deterministic cosmic void scenario can be empirically adequate. Can they be made to work? I am not sure. In any case it will take more work to show. Even if neither strategy works, we can learn something from these examples: they may give us additional reasons why material objects are crucial for formulating successful physical theories and writing the book of the world. 20 Acknowledgement I would like to thank the editors of this volume
strongly deterministic. The possibility is certainly unfamiliar and faces unmanageable challenge, but it deserves careful and critical scrutiny. I hope the movie draft above is interesting enough to provoke further explorations on this subject. There is an interesting connection between the cosmic void scenario and the ontologist anarchist's movie of a fundamental ontology without any object. According to ontological nihilism, there be no objects at the fundamental level. This view is discussed in, for example, (Hawthorne & Cortens 1995) and (Turner 2010). Dasgupta (2009) develop a related view where facts necessitate individual objects are paraphrased away. Maxwell (2019) also develop a closely related view according to which objects do not act an indispensable role in metaphysics. In the nihilist / anti - object framework, ordinary prison term involving objects are to be paraphrased in terms of non - objectual language that does not ontologically commit us to the existence of objects. The cosmic void scenario is compatible with that picture, but the two approach are quite different. The heavy lifting in the cosmic null scenario is do not by retool logic or semantics, but by using a particular kind of forcible theory to deduce non - fundamental facts about matter from cardinal laws alone. Hence, the cosmic void possibility is at the same fourth dimension more radical and more modest. It is more radical in that we do not postulate even cardinal properties, cosmopolitan facts, bare facts, or structural facts (Ladyman et al. 2007) in the fundamental ontology. It is more minor in that the strategy is not supposed to work in cosmopolitan, but only in some especial physical theories where solid determinism holds. therefore, we have two potential strategies for getting rid of fundamental material ontology: the metaphysical scheme and the scientific strategy. Both are difficult positions to defend. On the metaphysical english, we need to show that the relevant kind of semantic and logical maneuver results in a satisfactory paraphrase of the original aim - language. On the scientific side, we need to testify that (1) the actual laws are strongly deterministic and (2) a strongly deterministic cosmic void scenario can be empirically adequate. Can they be made to function? I am not sure. In any case it will lead more work to show. Even if neither strategy works, we can learn something from these examples: they may grant us additional reasons why material objects are crucial for formulating successful forcible theories and writing the bible of the world. 20 Acknowledgement I would like to thank the editors of this volume
 stgongly deterministic. The possibility is certaiily unfzmiliar xnd faces difficult challengxs, byt it deserves careful and zritical dcrutiny. I hipe the picvhre outlined znove ns interesting ekough to prmvoke further axollrations on this topic. There is an ynteresyijg connection fetwten the bowmic void scenario and the onfologisu nihilist's picturr of a fundamental ontologj wihhout any objects. Wccording ti oneilogical nihklism, thert cre no objedts at the fundamental level. Thks vizw is discuwswd lt, for exampoe, (Harthorne & Corbvns 1995) ang (Turnet 2010). Dasgupta (2009) dcvelo's a related view where fects involving indivydual objaccs are paraphrased awqy. Maxwgll (2019) dlso eevdloks e cmosely remated view according ro which objects do njn play an indjspenswbje role in metaphysics. In the nihilist / anfi-object framework, ordibary sentences involvlng objeces are to be paraphrased in terms of non-objectual langnaee uhqt dodw jot ontologically commit us to the existence jr pbmects. The cosmic void scenatil of compatible dith tkzt picture, but the tao apprjachew are quiue digferent. The heavy lifting ib the cosmic coid scenario is dlne not by xevisimg lobic or semantics, but by usihg a particklar kind uf physical theofy no darive non-fundamental facts about mavter yrom funaamemtal lwws alone. Jence, the cosmic void podsibipidy is at tje same time more radical and more modest. It os moge radicaj in bhat we do not [ostulate even fundamzntal oroperties, generan facts, barq facts, or stsoctural facts (Ladyman et ql. 2007) un the wjndamental ontplogy. It ps morw modest in that tme sttafegy is not sup'uwed to work in bendraj, huv onlr in some spewial phhxical theoritf chdre xtrong determinism hmlds. Hence, we have two pjtential strategyes for gettimg rid of fundamenual maverial ontokogi: the metaphysical strategy and the sciejtinic strategy. Foth are difficukt positions to defend. On the metaphysiral side, we need to shoq that the relevant lind of sementic wnd logicdl maneuver results un a satisfactory paraphrase of the orjginal objeft-language. On the scientific side, we need to show that (1) the actual laws aee strongly determjnisyic atd (2) a strjnglb veterministic coskic void scenario can be empirirally adeqgace. Can they be made to work? I ao not sure. In any case it will take mkre work to show. Even if neither strateby works, we can learn sokething drom fhese vsaoples: they may givr us abditiobal reawons why material obkegts are crkciak yor formulating successful physicql theirles and writing vhe book of bht world. 20 Acknjwledgement I wohld mlke tu thank the ecitors of this volume
strongly deterministic. The possibility is certainly unfamiliar difficult but it careful and critical outlined is interesting enough provoke further explorations this topic. There is an interesting between the cosmic void scenario and the ontologist nihilist's picture of a fundamental without any objects. According to ontological nihilism, there are no objects at the level. view discussed for example, (Hawthorne & Cortens 1995) and (Turner 2010). Dasgupta (2009) develops a related view where involving individual objects are paraphrased away. Maxwell (2019) develops a closely related according to which objects do play indispensable role metaphysics. the / anti-object framework, sentences involving objects are to be paraphrased in terms of non-objectual language that does not ontologically commit to the objects. The void is with that picture, two approaches are quite different. The the cosmic void scenario is done not by logic or but by using a particular kind physical theory to derive non-fundamental facts about matter fundamental laws alone. Hence, the cosmic void possibility is at the same time more radical modest. It is more in that we not even properties, facts, bare or structural facts (Ladyman et al. 2007) in the fundamental ontology. is more modest in that the strategy is not supposed in but only in special physical theories where determinism Hence, we have two for rid ontology: metaphysical and the scientific strategy. are difficult positions to defend. the metaphysical side, we relevant kind of semantic and logical maneuver results a satisfactory paraphrase of the original object-language. the scientific side, we need to show that (1) the actual laws strongly deterministic a strongly deterministic cosmic void scenario can be adequate. Can they be to work? I am not sure. In any case will more work show. Even if strategy works, we learn something from they may us reasons are crucial for formulating successful physical and the book of the world. Acknowledgement like to thank the editors of this volume
 strongly deterministic. The pOssibility Is cerTaiNly UnFamiLiar And faces difficULt chAllenges, but it deserves cArefuL aND criTIcAl scrUtiny. I hOPe THE piCtUrE ouTlINeD abovE is InteresTing enough To pRoVoke further eXPlOrations on ThiS topic. There iS an IntereStIng COnnecTioN betwEen the COsmic vOid scenarIo ANd the oNTologisT NIhIlisT's picture of a fundaMEnTAl ontology withOut any ObJEcTS. accOrdIng to ontolOgIcal nIHilism, tHErE ARE no OBjects at the fuNdamental leVEl. THis vieW iS diSCussed In, for ExAMplE, (Hawthorne & COrteNs 1995) and (TurnEr 2010). DasgUPta (2009) deveLOps a relAted viEw wHerE facTS iNvOlvInG IndIViDuaL ObjEcts are pArApHraseD awaY. mAXWell (2019) AlsO devElops A closely relatEd vIew aCCorDing tO whicH objEcTs do nOt play An indIsPensable role in mEtapHysics. In tHe nIhIliSt / Anti-oBJect frAmeWorK, ordinaRy senteNCes InVOLViNg objects are to be paRaPHRaSed in terMs of noN-ObJeCTual langUaGe tHat dOES not oNtolOGiCally comMit us tO ThE eXistencE oF objecTs. the CosMic voID sceNario iS compatiBle wiTH that picture, buT The two approacHEs ARE qUIte dIffErent. The heaVy liFTing In thE CoSmiC Void sCenarIo IS dONe not by revising logiC oR semanTics, bUt by using a parTicular kinD OF Physical TheoRY tO Derive non-fundaMentaL facts abouT Matter frOm funDamental Laws alone. hENce, the coSmiC voId pOssIBIlIty is at the samE TIme mOrE radicaL anD more moDesT. It Is mOre RaDical in thAt we do noT pOsTuLaTe eVen fuNDamental PrOpeRtIes, GenerAL facts, Bare fActs, Or StRUctUral facTS (LADYman Et Al. 2007) In thE fuNdAmentAl onTOloGy. It is mOre modest In tHAt thE sTrAtegy is Not supposed to WoRk in generaL, bUt oNly in sOME special Physical theories where stROng deteRmiNism hOlds. hence, we haVe tWo poteNtiAL stratEgies fOr getTiNg rID Of funDAMeNtaL mAterial ontOLOgy: The meTaPhysIcal strAtegy and the scientiFIc sTrategy. Both arE diFficULT pOsiTIoNS to DeFEnd. oN The metaphysical Side, we need To SHoW that the reLEvaNt Kind of sEmantic And loGIcal manEuver resuLts in a satIsFactORY paRaphrase of The origiNal object-LAnguaGE. ON the sCieNtific SiDe, wE need To show THat (1) The acTual laWs Are strOngly DeTerminisTic and (2) a strongly determinIstic cOsmic VoiD scenario Can BE emPirically AdeqUate. Can theY be MadE to woRk? I AM not sUre. IN AnY caSE it wiLl taKE more work TO sHow. eVEn If neither stRATEgy Works, We cAN learn SomeThing from these exaMPles: they may givE us aDDItiOnaL ReasOnS why material obJecTs ARE crucial FoR formulatinG successFuL PhysiCal theOries aNd writiNG ThE Book of The wOrlD. 20 AcknowleDgeMeNT I would LiKe TO thank The eDiTors of This voLUme
 strongly deterministic. T he possibi lityiscer ta inly  unf amiliar and fa c es d ifficult challenges, b ut it  d e serv e scaref ul andc ri t i cal  s cr uti ny .  I  hope  th e pictu re outline d a bo ve is intere s ti ng enoughtoprovoke furt her  explo ra tio n s onthi s top ic. Th e re isan intere st i ng con n ectionb e tw eenthe cosmic void s c en a rio and the on tologi st ni h i lis t's  picture o fa fun d amental on t o l ogy without any o bjects. Acc o rdi ng toon tol o gicalnihil is m , t here are no  obj ects at t he fun d amental level.This v iew  is  dis c us se d i n, for ex amp l e,(Hawthor ne  &  Cort ens1 9 9 5 ) an d ( Turn er 20 10). Dasgupta  (2 009) dev elops  a re late dviewwherefacts  i nvolving indivi dual  objectsare  p ara ph rased away.Max wel l (2019 ) alsod eve lo p s aclosely related vi ew a cc ording t o whic h  o bj e cts do n ot  pl ay a n indis pens a bl e role i n meta p hy si cs. Inth e nihi li st/ a nti-o b ject  frame work, or dinar y  sentences inv o lving objects ar e to be p ara phrased interm s  ofnon- o bj ect u al la nguag et ha t  does not ontologic al ly com mit u s to the exis tence of o b j e cts. The  cos m ic void scenariois co mpatible w i th thatpictu re, butthe two a p p roachesare  qu ite  di f f er ent. The heav y lift in g in th e c osmic v oid  sc ena rio  i s done no t by rev is in glo gic  or s e mantics,  b utby  us ing a partic ularkind  o fp hys ical th e or y to d er iv e no n-f un damen talf act s about  matter f rom fund am en tal law s alone. Henc e,  the cosmi cvoi d poss i b ility is  at the same time morer adicaland  more  mod est. It i s m ore ra dic a l in t hat we  do n ot  po s t ulate e ve n f un damental p r o per ties,  g ener al fact s, bare facts, ors tru ctural facts(La dyma n et  al .  2 0 07)  i n  th e fundamental ont ology. Itis mo re modesti n t ha t the s trategy  is n o t suppo sed to wo rk in gen er al,b u t o nly in som e specia l physica l  theo r ie s whe restrong  d ete rmini sm hol d s.Hence , we h av e twopoten ti al strat egies for getting rid o f fund ament almaterialont o log y: the me taph ysical str ate gyand t hes cient ific st rat e gy. B otha re diffic u lt  po s i ti ons to defe n d .  On  themet a physic al s ide, we need to s h ow that the re leva n t  ki ndo f se ma ntic and logic alma n e uver res ul ts in a sat isfactor yp araph rase o f theorigina l ob j ect-la ngua ge.  On the s cie nt i fic sid e,  w e  needto s ho w that  (1) t h e ac t u al laws are stro nglyd e termi n ist ic an d(2) a s t rong ly determi nistic cosm ic voi d sc enari o can b eempiri cal ly  adequate. Can theybe ma de to w or k? I  am  not s ure. I n any  cas eitwill take m or e  w or k  to  sho w. Ev en  ifneither s t rategy w ork s , we ca nlea r n  somet h in g from these  ex ample s :  they mayg iveu sa dditi onal r easons  why ma t eri al  object s a r e  crucialfor formu l ati ng  suc cessfulph ysic al  th eo ries and writin g the bo ok of th e world.  20 Ackn o wledge me nt I would l ike t ot hank th e edi tors of thi s v olu me
 strongly_deterministic. The_possibility is certainly unfamiliar_and faces_difficult_challenges, but_it_deserves careful and_critical scrutiny. I_hope the picture outlined_above is interesting_enough_to provoke further explorations on this topic. There is an interesting connection between the_cosmic_void scenario_and_the_ontologist nihilist's picture of a_fundamental ontology without any objects._According to_ontological nihilism, there are no objects at the_fundamental_level. This view_is discussed in, for example, (Hawthorne & Cortens 1995)_and (Turner 2010). Dasgupta (2009) develops_a related view_where_facts_involving individual objects are_paraphrased away. Maxwell (2019) also develops_a closely related view according to_which objects do not play an indispensable_role in metaphysics. In the nihilist_/ anti-object framework, ordinary sentences_involving objects_are to be paraphrased in_terms of non-objectual_language that_does not ontologically_commit us to the existence of_objects. The cosmic_void scenario is compatible with that_picture,_but the two_approaches_are_quite different._The heavy lifting_in_the cosmic_void_scenario is done not by revising_logic_or semantics, but by using a particular_kind of physical theory_to_derive non-fundamental facts about_matter from fundamental laws alone._Hence, the cosmic void possibility is_at the_same time_more radical and more modest. It is more radical in that_we do not postulate even fundamental_properties, general facts, bare_facts, or_structural_facts (Ladyman et_al._2007) in_the fundamental ontology. It is more modest_in that_the strategy is not supposed to_work in general, but_only_in some special physical theories where_strong determinism holds. Hence, we have_two potential strategies for getting_rid_of_fundamental material ontology: the metaphysical_strategy and the scientific strategy. Both_are difficult positions_to defend. On the metaphysical side, we_need_to show that the relevant kind_of_semantic and logical maneuver results in_a_satisfactory_paraphrase of the original object-language._On the scientific side, we need_to show that (1) the actual laws are strongly_deterministic and (2)_a strongly deterministic cosmic void_scenario_can_be empirically adequate. Can they be made to work? I_am not_sure. In any_case it will take more work to show. Even if_neither strategy works, we can learn something_from these examples: they may give us additional reasons why material_objects are crucial for formulating successful physical theories_and writing the book of the world._20 Acknowledgement I would_like_to thank the editors of this volume