14065 research outputs found
Sort by
Where Photons Have Been: Nowhere Without All Components of Their Wavefunctions
Get PDFA nested interferometer experiment by Danan et al (2013) is discussed and some ontological implications explored, primarily in the context of time-symmetric interpretations of quantum theory. It is pointed out that photons are supported by all components of their wavefunctions, not selectively truncated "first order" portions of them, and that figures representing both a gap in the photon's path and signals from the cut-off path are incorrect. It is also noted that the Transactional Formulation (traditionally known as the Transactional Interpretation) readily accounts for the observed phenomena
Born Again! The Born Rule as a Feature of Superposition
Get PDFWhere does the Born Rule come from? We ask: “What is the simplest extension of probability theory where the Born rule appears”? This is answered by introducing “superposition events” in addition to the usual discrete events. Two-dimensional matrices (e.g., incidence matrices and density matrices) are needed to mathematically represent the differences between the two types of events. Then it is shown that those incidence and density matrices for superposition events are the (outer) products of a vector and its transpose whose components foreshadow the “amplitudes” of quantum mechanics. The squares of the components of those “amplitude” vectors yield the probabilities of the outcomes. That is how probability amplitudes and the Born Rule arise in the minimal extension of probability theory to include superposition events. This naturally extends to the full Born Rule in the Hilbert spaces over the complex numbers of quantum mechanics. It would perhaps be satisfying if probability amplitudes and the Born Rule only arose as the result of deep results in quantum mechanics (e.g., Gleason’s Theorem). But both arise in a simple extension of probability theory to include “superposition events”–which should not be too surprising since superposition is the key non-classical concept in quantum mechanics
A double-halfer embarrassment: Response to Pust
Get PDFTitelbaum (2012) introduced a variant of the Sleeping Beauty problem in which a coin is tossed on both Monday and Tuesday, with the Tuesday toss not affecting Beauty's condition. Titelbaum argues that double halfers are committed to the embarrassing position that Beauty's credence that today's coin toss lands heads is greater than 1/2. Pust (2023) agrees with the result, but argues that it is not a distinctive embarrassment for halfers. I argue that thirders need not be embarrassed. Double halfers, on the other hand, must hold that Beauty's evidence is admissible for direct inference with respect to Monday's coin toss, but not with respect to today's coin toss. This is embarrassing because (1) a plausible argument exists for the opposite position, and (2) the position conflicts with the central motivation guiding double halfism
Laws, Initial Conditions and Physical Modality: Lessons from Cosmology
Get PDFCertain considerations from cosmology (Ellis 2006, 2014) and other areas of physics (Sklar, 1990; Frisch, 2004) pose challenges to the traditional distinction between laws and initial conditions, indicating the need for a more nuanced understanding of physical modality. A solution to these challenges is provided by presenting a conceptual framework according to which laws and fundamental lawlike assumptions within a theory’s nomic structure determine what is physically necessary and what is physically contingent from a physical theory’s point of view. Initial conditions are defined within this framework in terms of the possible configurations of a physical system allowed by the laws and other lawlike assumptions of a theory. The proposed deflationary framework of physical modality offers an alternative way of understanding the distinction between laws and initial conditions and allows the question of the modal status of the initial conditions of the Universe to be asked in a meaningful way
Promoting Scientific Progress
Get PDFIn the philosophical debate about scientific progress, several authors appeal to a distinction between what constitutes scientific progress and what promotes it (e.g., Bird, 2008; Rowbottom, 2008; Dellsén, 2016). However, the extant literature is almost completely silent on what exactly it is for scientific progress to be promoted. Here I provide a precise account of progress promotion on which it consists, roughly, in increasing expected progress. This account may be combined with any of the major theories of what constitutes scientific progress, such as the truthlikeness, problem-solving, epistemic, and noetic accounts. However, I will also suggest that once we have this account of progress promotion up and running, some accounts of what constitutes progress become harder to motivate by the sorts of considerations often adduced in their favor, while others turn out to be easier to defend against common objections
Causation, Cluelessness, and the Long Term
Get PDFAgents are said to be "clueless" if they are unable to predict some ethically important consequences of their actions. Some philosophers have argued that such "cluelessness" is widespread and creates problems for certain approaches to ethics. According to Hilary Greaves, a particularly problematic type of cluelessness, namely, "complex" cluelessness, affects attempts to do good as effectively as possible, as suggested by proponents of "Effective Altruism," because we are typically clueless about the long-term consequences of such interventions. As a reaction, she suggests focusing on interventions that are long-term oriented from the start.
This paper argues for three claims: first, that David Lewis' distinction between sensitive and insensitive causation can help us better understand the differences between genuinely "complex" and more harmless "simple" cluelessness; second, that Greaves' worry about complex cluelessness can be mitigated for attempts to do near-term good; and, third, that Greaves' recommendation to focus on long term-oriented interventions in response to complex cluelessness is not promising as a strategy specifically for avoiding complex cluelessness. There are systematic reasons why the actual effects of serious attempts to beneficially shape the long-term future are inherently difficult to predict and why, hence, such attempts are prone to backfiring
Clarifying coincident general relativity
Get PDFThe nodes of the `geometric trinity' are: (i) general relativity (in which gravitational effects are a manifestation of spacetime curvature), (ii) the `teleparallel equivalent' of general relativity (which trades spacetime curvature for torsion), and (iii) the `symmetric teleparallel equivalent' of general relativity (which trades spacetime curvature for non-metricity). One popular reformulation of (iii) is `coincident general relativity', but this theory has yet to receive any philosophical attention. This article aims both to introduce philosophers to coincident general relativity, and to undertake a detailed assessment of its features
Hacking on Looping Effects and Kinds of People
Get PDFThis paper critically examines Ian Hacking’s account of looping effects and human kinds, focusing on three related arguments defended by Hacking: (1) the looping effects of human science classifications render their objects of classification inherently unstable, (2) looping effects preclude the possibility of generating stable projectable inferences (i.e., reliable predictions) based on human kind terms, and (3) looping effects can demarcate human science classifications from natural science classifications. Contra-Hacking, I argue that: (1) some objects of human science classifications (viz., biological kinds) remain stable despite the feedback generated by their classifications, (2), human science classifications that individuate biological kinds yield stable projectable inferences, and (3) looping effects are a problematic criterion for distinguishing human science classifications from natural science classifications
Inference to the Source
Get PDFIt has been argued that, in scientific observations, the theory of the observed source should not be involved in the observation process to avoid circular reasoning and ensure reliable inferences. However, the issue of underdetermination of the source has been largely overlooked. I argue that concerns about circularity in inferring the source stem from the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) method. The epistemic threat, if any, arises not from the theory-laden nature of observation but from the underdetermination of the source by the data, since the data could be explained by proposing incompatible sources for it. Overcoming this underdetermination is key to reliably inferring the source. I propose a bidirectional version of inference to the only explanation as a methodological framework that addresses this challenge while circumventing concerns about theory-ladenness. Nevertheless, fully justifying the viability of the background theoretical framework and its accurate description of the source requires a broader conception of evidence. To this end, I argue that integrating meta-empirical assessment into inference to the only explanation offers a promising strategy, extending the concept of evidence in a justifiable manner
Is the value-free ideal of science untenable? Part I: Inductive risk
Get PDFThe inductive risk argument challenges the value-free ideal of science by asserting that scientists should manage the inductive risks involved in scientific inference through social values, which consists in weighing the social implications of errors when setting evidential thresholds. Most of the previous analyses of the argument fall short of engaging directly with its core assumptions, and thereby offer limited criticisms. This paper critically examines the two key premises of the inductive risk argument: the thesis of epistemic insufficiency, which asserts that the internal standards of science do not suffice to determine evidential thresholds in a non-arbitrary fashion, and the thesis of legitimate value-encroachment, which asserts that non-scientific value judgments can justifiably influence these thresholds. A critical examination of the first premise shows that the inductive risk argument does not pose a unique epistemic challenge beyond what is already implied by fallibilism about scientific knowledge, and fails because the mere assumption of fallibilism does not imply the untenability of value-freedom. This is demonstrated by showing that the way in which evidential thresholds are set in science is not arbitrary in any sense that would lend support to the inductive risk argument. A critical examination of the second premise shows that incorporating social values into scientific inference as an inductive risk-management strategy faces a meta-criterion problem, and consequently leads to several serious issues such as wishful thinking, category mistakes in decision making, or Mannheim-style paradoxes of justification. Consequently, value-laden strategies for inductive risk management in scientific inference would likely weaken the justification of scientific conclusions in most cases