{"title":"Visual Streams as Core Mechanisms","authors":"Benjamin Henke","doi":"10.1086/728262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728262","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"22 S2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135589580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To what extent does the black hole information paradox lead to violations of quantum mechanics? I explain how black hole complementarity provides a framework to articulate how quantum characterizations of black holes can remain consistent despite the information paradox. I point out that there are two ways to cash out the notion of consistency in play here: an operational notion and a descriptive notion. These two ways of thinking about consistency lead to (at least) two principles of black hole complementarity: an operational principle and a descriptive principle. Our background philosophy of science regarding realism/instrumentalism might initially lead us to prefer one principle over the other. However, the recent physics literature, which applies tools from quantum information theory and quantum computational complexity theory to various thought experiments involving quantum systems in or around black holes, implies that the operational principle is successful where the descriptive principle is not. This then lets us see that for operationalists the black hole information paradox might no longer be pressing.
{"title":"Unpacking Black Hole Complementarity","authors":"Siddharth Muthukrishnan","doi":"10.1086/728047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728047","url":null,"abstract":"To what extent does the black hole information paradox lead to violations of quantum mechanics? I explain how black hole complementarity provides a framework to articulate how quantum characterizations of black holes can remain consistent despite the information paradox. I point out that there are two ways to cash out the notion of consistency in play here: an operational notion and a descriptive notion. These two ways of thinking about consistency lead to (at least) two principles of black hole complementarity: an operational principle and a descriptive principle. Our background philosophy of science regarding realism/instrumentalism might initially lead us to prefer one principle over the other. However, the recent physics literature, which applies tools from quantum information theory and quantum computational complexity theory to various thought experiments involving quantum systems in or around black holes, implies that the operational principle is successful where the descriptive principle is not. This then lets us see that for operationalists the black hole information paradox might no longer be pressing.","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"14 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135590175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The burgeoning debate over biological individuality raises deep issues, philosophical and scientific, but suffers from pervasive conceptual unclarity. This paper offers a diagnosis of what has gone wrong. It is argued that the problem of biological individuality, as it is often formulated in the literature, rests on a category mistake. The mistake is to think that the expression “biological individual” is a sortal , when in fact it is not. This diagnosis sheds light on a number of otherwise puzzling aspects of the debate.
{"title":"On the very idea of biological individuality","authors":"Samir Okasha","doi":"10.1086/728048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728048","url":null,"abstract":"The burgeoning debate over biological individuality raises deep issues, philosophical and scientific, but suffers from pervasive conceptual unclarity. This paper offers a diagnosis of what has gone wrong. It is argued that the problem of biological individuality, as it is often formulated in the literature, rests on a category mistake. The mistake is to think that the expression “biological individual” is a sortal , when in fact it is not. This diagnosis sheds light on a number of otherwise puzzling aspects of the debate.","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135590191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the literature on expert trust, it is often assumed that track records are the gold standard for evaluating expertise, and the di ffi culty of expert identification arises from either the lack of access to track records
{"title":"Track Records: A Cautionary Tale","authors":"Alice C.W. Huang","doi":"10.1086/728459","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728459","url":null,"abstract":"In the literature on expert trust, it is often assumed that track records are the gold standard for evaluating expertise, and the di ffi culty of expert identification arises from either the lack of access to track records","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"22 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135589576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper investigates the historical and contemporary pursuit-worthiness of cosmic inflation-the rationale for working on it (rather than necessarily the evidential support for claims to its approximate truth): what reasons existed, and exist, that warrant inflation's status as the mainstream paradigm studied, explored, and further developed by the majority of the cosmology community? We'll show that inflation exemplifies various salient theory virtues: explanatory depth, unifying/integrative power, fertility and positive heuristics, the promotion of understanding, and the prospect (and passing) of novel benchmark tests. This, we'll argue, constitutes inflation's auspicious promise. It marks inflation as preferable over both the inflation-less Hot Big Bang Model, as well as rivals to inflation: inflation, we maintain, rightly deserved, and continues to deserve, the concerted research efforts it has enjoyed.
{"title":"The Virtues of Pursuit-Worthy Speculation: The Promises of Cosmic Inflation","authors":"William J. Wolf, Patrick M Duerr","doi":"10.1086/728263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728263","url":null,"abstract":"The paper investigates the historical and contemporary pursuit-worthiness of cosmic inflation-the rationale for working on it (rather than necessarily the evidential support for claims to its approximate truth): what reasons existed, and exist, that warrant inflation's status as the mainstream paradigm studied, explored, and further developed by the majority of the cosmology community? We'll show that inflation exemplifies various salient theory virtues: explanatory depth, unifying/integrative power, fertility and positive heuristics, the promotion of understanding, and the prospect (and passing) of novel benchmark tests. This, we'll argue, constitutes inflation's auspicious promise. It marks inflation as preferable over both the inflation-less Hot Big Bang Model, as well as rivals to inflation: inflation, we maintain, rightly deserved, and continues to deserve, the concerted research efforts it has enjoyed.","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"3 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135589732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Several prominent debates in biology, such as those surrounding adaptationism, group selection, and punctuated equilibrium, have focused on disagreements about the relative importance of a cause in producing a phenomenon of interest. Some philosophers, such as John Beatty have expressed scepticism about the scientific value of engaging in these controversies, and Karen Kovaka has suggested that their value might be limited. In this paper, I challenge that scepticism by giving a novel analysis of relative significance controversies, showing that there are three forms they can take. I argue that these controversies can have significant epistemic upshots, in that they help scientists form predictions about new instances of the phenomenon of interest. Finally, using two historical examples, I show how engaging in these controversies can improve our understanding of causal relationships.
{"title":"Relative Significance Controversies in Evolutionary Biology","authors":"Katherine Deaven","doi":"10.1086/728261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728261","url":null,"abstract":"Several prominent debates in biology, such as those surrounding adaptationism, group selection, and punctuated equilibrium, have focused on disagreements about the relative importance of a cause in producing a phenomenon of interest. Some philosophers, such as John Beatty have expressed scepticism about the scientific value of engaging in these controversies, and Karen Kovaka has suggested that their value might be limited. In this paper, I challenge that scepticism by giving a novel analysis of relative significance controversies, showing that there are three forms they can take. I argue that these controversies can have significant epistemic upshots, in that they help scientists form predictions about new instances of the phenomenon of interest. Finally, using two historical examples, I show how engaging in these controversies can improve our understanding of causal relationships.","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"26 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135589150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Using the tools of nonstandard analysis, we develop and present an alternative formulation of Bohmian mechanics. This approach allows one to describe a broader assortment of physical systems than the standard formulation of the theory. It also allows one to make predictions in more situations. We motivate the nonstandard formulation with a Bohmian example system that exhibits behavior akin to Earman's (1986) classical space invaders and reverse space invaders. We then use the example to illustrate how the alternative formulation of Bohmian mechanics works.
{"title":"A Nonstandard Formulation of Bohmian Mechanics","authors":"Jeffrey Barrett, Isaac Goldbring","doi":"10.1086/728050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728050","url":null,"abstract":"Using the tools of nonstandard analysis, we develop and present an alternative formulation of Bohmian mechanics. This approach allows one to describe a broader assortment of physical systems than the standard formulation of the theory. It also allows one to make predictions in more situations. We motivate the nonstandard formulation with a Bohmian example system that exhibits behavior akin to Earman's (1986) classical space invaders and reverse space invaders. We then use the example to illustrate how the alternative formulation of Bohmian mechanics works.","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135589583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：