No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
... Obviously, a cosmic environment has not been involved by them. Hence, here a model called "small ripple" attempts to add it, and then will naturally meet with 4 phenomena: CMB, parity [6], inertia [7], and mass conservation, only which CMB is a direct and detectable messenger probably comes from cosmic outsidebackground. ...
... the gravitational coupling between matter and spacetime [30], which these reference frames [7], [29], [30] were provisional and will enable someone indistinct or hard to understand. Here a simple way is appending cosmic surroundings (matter there influences inertia here) [31] forming a closed space (with appropriate boundary conditions of closure) [32]. ...
... In this work, horizon was broadened to cosmic backgroundphoton latticewhere likely grew out cosmos then was a source of CMB [1], inertia [7], [29], [34], and mass conservation; also from Fig. 1 it implies that a cosmos of ordinary (left-) [24] or anti (right-handed) matter [21] (neither parity [6] conservation) might hinge on its critical spin (a relevant speed ~ 600 km/s) [14] directions (causing CMB dipole split temperatures) [16] eventually. ...
A possibility is that in cosmic background, primordial photon lattice where emerges a way to mass conservation, a photon was disturbed to create a spin then lead to its neighbors consecutively avalanching -- CMB -- into this a small ripple, which inverse spin directions pointing to a world was made of matter or antimatter whichever is parity violation; now cosmos was like an expanding hole -- an isotropic gravity field -- in photon lattice that influenced on everything, so inertia will be partly clarified.
... Galileo explained the relativity of uniform and rectilinear motion in all details? In particular, he devoted a signicant portion of his Dialogues [14] to describing the sensations of an observer conned below decks of a steadily sailing ship. ...
... Sagredo [14]. In conrmation of this I remember having often found myself in my cabin wondering whether the ship was moving or standing still; and sometimes at a whim I have supposed it going one way when its motion was the opposite. ...
... x = x cos φ + y sin φ, (14) y = −x sin φ + y cos φ, (15) z = z, (16) as shown in Figure 11. Simplicio. ...
Sagredo, Salviati, Simplicio and their friends debate relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and quantum gravity
... Young Richard became leader of the mathematics team at high school. Three excellent volumes of the Feynman Lectures on Physics clearly demonstrate the depth of Richard Feynman's comprehension of physical science 12 . ...
... There were also two autobiographical sketches written in cooperation with Ralph Leighton. 12 I would like to make a parallel with another famous talent, the French physicist and mathematician Pier Simon Laplace (1749-1827). Laplace was a brilliant student. ...
Instead of Abstract: We continue to publish, in a series, the book THE SECRET OF GENIALITY (Yerevan, Armenia, Noyan Tapan Printing House, 2002) by our colleague Robert Djidjian, not only because we all must know the philosophical research and creation (in our domain of epistemology and philosophy of science and technology) from a wider geographic area than that provided by the established fashion in virtue of both extra-scientific reasons and a yet obsolete manner to communicate and value the research; but also because the book as such is living, challenging and very instructive. The title of the book is suggestive enough to make us to focus on an old problem: the dialectic of the insight, of the discovery-its psychology moving between flashes of intuitions and knowledge stored in memory-and its logic of composition of knowledge from hypotheses to their demonstration and verification. The realm of science is most conducive to the understanding of this dialectic and the constitution of the ideas which are the proofs of what is the most certain for humans: the "world 3", as Popper called the kingdom of human results of their intellection, and though transient and perishable in both their uniqueness and cosmic fate, the only certain proof of the reason to be of homo sapiens in the frame of multiversal existence. Therefore, the power to create is the secret of the human geniality, and how to create science is a main part of this secret. (Ana Bazac) În loc de rezumat: Continuăm să publicăm, în serial, cartea SECRETUL GENIALITĂȚII (Erevan, Armenia, Tipografia Noyan Tapan, 2002) de colegul nostru Robert Djidjian, nu numai pentru că toți trebuie să cunoaștem cercetarea și creația filosofică (în domeniul nostru de epistemologia și filosofia științei și tehnologiei) dintr-o zonă geografică mai largă decât aceea oferită de moda consacrată atât din motive extra-științifice cât și dintr-o manieră încă învechită de a comunica și a valorifica cercetarea; dar și pentru că volumul ca atare este viu, provocator și foarte instructiv. Titlul cărții este suficient de sugestiv pentru a ne face să ne concentrăm asupra unei probleme vechi: dialectica intuiției, a descoperirii-psihologia ei mișcându-se între sclipiri de intuiții și cunoștințe stocate în memorie-și logica compunerii cunoștințelor din ipoteze, și pe de altă parte, demonstrarea și verificarea lor. Tărâmul științei este cel mai favorabil pentru înțelegerea acestei dialectici și constituirea ideilor care sunt dovada a ceea ce este cel mai sigur pentru oameni: "lumea 3", cum a numit Popper regatul rezultatelor umane ale intelecției lor și, deși trecătoare și perisabilă atât în unicitatea, cât și în soarta lor cosmică, singura dovadă certă a rațiunii de a fi a lui homo sapiens în cadrul existenței multiversale. Așadar, puterea de a crea este secretul genialității umane, iar modul de a crea știință este o parte principală a acestui secret. (Ana Bazac) Step 9. TALENTS VERSUS "REAL" GENIUSES "Talent is that which is in a man's power; genius is that in whose power a man is." J. G. Holland You know geniuses by their fruits, while talents are known by their brilliant intellect. A scientist who made an epochal discovery wins the laurels of a true genius, independently of the level of his intellectual faculties. But if a prominent scientist had not the luck to make an epochal 1 Graduated in Physics, later in Philosophy; Ph.D., Professor of Epistemology at the Department of Philosophy and Logic named after Academician Georg Brutian at the Armenian State Pedagogical University after Khachatur Abovian.
... Section 4 argues that LLMs do not replicate CALU and provide no countervailing reason to invoke an internalist orientation and competence-performance distinction in the study of human language. Section 5, using this analysis, responds to the argument that LLMs are theories, illustrating how the split 1) The name is drawn from a man so impressed with language-perhaps written communication especially-as "surpassing all stupendous inventions" (Galileo, 2001(Galileo, /1632 of the Cartesian problem in biolinguistics reflects a deliberate lowering of expectations for the sake of scientific tractability-a theoretical accommodation LLMs do not permit. Finally, Section 6 links the foregoing analysis to the question of cognitive architecture, arguing that the postulation of a generative language faculty that makes possible-but does not explain-CALU offers a more viable account of human language than LLMs permit or indicate. ...
Descartes famously constructed a language test to determine the existence of other minds. The test made critical observations about how humans use language that purportedly distinguishes them from animals and machines. These observations were carried into the generative (and later biolinguistic) enterprise under what Chomsky in his Cartesian Linguistics, terms the “creative aspect of language use” (CALU). CALU refers to the stimulus-free, unbounded, yet appropriate use of language—a tripartite depiction whose function in biolinguistics is to highlight a species-specific form of intellectual freedom. This paper argues that CALU provides a set of facts that have significant downstream effects on explanatory theory-construction. These include the internalist orientation of linguistics, the invocation of a competence-performance distinction, and the postulation of a generative language faculty that makes possible—but does not explain—CALU. It contrasts the biolinguistic approach to CALU with the recent wave of enthusiasm for the use of Transformer-based Large Language Models (LLMs) as tools, models, or theories of human language, arguing that such uses neglect these fundamental insights to their detriment. It argues that, in the absence of replication, identification, or accounting of CALU, LLMs do not match the explanatory depth of the biolinguistic framework, thereby limiting their theoretical usefulness.
... Though science-based technology has greatly improved human life over the last five centuries, we need to admit that it hasn't done much for our existential self-esteem. Italian mathematician Galileo (1632) proved the earlier thesis of Polish mathematician Copernicus (1543), which stated that the Sun, not the Earth, is the Center of the Universe. 2 Darwin (1859) struck the next great blow to humanity's sense of cosmic entitlement by putting forth the theory that variation and natural selection could account for all the species of life. ...
This paper examines the human relationship to technology, and AI in particular, including the proposition that algorithms are the new unconscious. Key is the question of how much human ability will be duplicated and transcended by general machine intelligence. More and more people are seeking connection via social media and interaction with artificial beings. The paper examines what it means to be human and which of these traits are already or will be replicated by AI. Therapy bots already exist. It is easier to envision AI therapy guided by CBT manuals than psychoanalytic techniques. Yet, a demonstration of how AI can already perform dream analysis reaching beyond a dream’s manifest content is presented. The reader is left to consider whether these findings demand a new role for psychoanalysis in supporting, sustaining, and reframing our humanity as we create technology that transcends our abilities.
... However, only much later, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, atomism regained interest among natural philosophers, most notably Isaac Beeckman, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, Pierre Gassendi, Robert Boyle, Henry Percy, Francis Bacon, Giordano Bruno, Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Hariot. Specifically, Galilei [85] and Newton [15] considered that the corpuscle of light could be the basic building block. And explicitly, in 1926, Lewis [18] coined the photon as the atom. ...
Thermodynamics is regarded as a universal but not foundational theory because its laws for macroscopic quantities have not been derived from microscopic entities. Thus, to root thermodynamics into the fundamental substance, atomism is revived, thinking that the light quantum is the indivisible and permanent element. Assuming the same basic building blocks constitute everything, the state of any system can be quantified by entropy, the logarithmic probability measure multiplied by Boltzmann’s constant. Then, the change in entropy expresses the system’s evolution toward thermodynamic balance with its surroundings. These natural processes consuming free energy in the least time accumulate sigmoidally, resulting in skewed distributions found throughout nature. In this way, thermodynamics makes sense of phenomena across disciplines and provides a holistic worldview to address questions such as what the world is, how we know about it, what is the meaning of life and how we should live.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘’Thermodynamics 2.0: Bridging the natural and social sciences (Part 1)’.
... 183-84) or the pictorial description of motion's relativity: "Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below decks on some large ship. . . " [27] (pp. 186-87). ...
The awareness and use of conceptual metaphors available in ordinary language should be a relevant part of teaching strategies, yet it is still rather neglected in teacher education. With a specific activity, we integrated a class of prospective kindergarten and primary school teachers on electric circuits with a reflection on the cognitive and linguistic aspects of metaphor. To understand how effective this integration proved to be, both in terms of learning and in terms of developing teaching skills, we conducted a single case study with a mixed qualitative–quantitative methodology. Student teachers were invited to analyze and discuss expressions on electric circuits selected from those they themselves had formulated at an earlier time. Here, we present some relevant results from the analysis of the students’ elaborations, highlighting how they worked with metaphors. They demonstrated a better understanding of the subject matter and greater awareness of teaching as well, in particular for what concerns the use of language and identifying and overcoming implicit ideas.
... Keeping the connections cost low is related to the principle of simplicity in science [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87], biological systems on the other hand seem to get more complex [88][89][90] because there are always rooms for more complex systems to account for all the complexity and challenges of the environment. Many studies in artificial systems also imply that a minimal level of complexity is necessary to attain a particular level of fitness [91][92][93][94][95][96][97]. ...
Evolving Neural Networks (NNs) has recently seen an increasing interest as an alternative path that might be more successful. It has many advantages compared to other approaches, such as learning the architecture of the NNs. However, the extremely large search space and the existence of many complex interacting parts still represent a major obstacle. Many criteria were recently investigated to help guide the algorithm and to cut down the large search space. Recently there has been growing research bringing insights from network science to improve the design of NNs. In this paper, we investigate evolving NNs architectures that have one of the most fundamental characteristics of real-world networks, namely the optimal balance between connections cost and information flow. The performance of different metrics that represent this balance is evaluated and the improvement in the accuracy of putting more selection pressure toward this balance is demonstrated on three datasets.
... This statement illustrates that no idea, theory, or an established system is sacred and beyond challenge. Through careful observations of celestial motions using telescopes, Galileo reasoned and demonstrated the truth of the heliocentric model of Copernicus over the Ptolemaic system of a geocentric universe 17 , that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He not only brought a change in an established system, which was accepted as truth for about 1500 years, but it plays an essential role in taking the 'principles of science' as a way of understanding our natural and social worlds. ...
... This was the basis upon which Galileo Galilei presented the Heliocentric model in terms of a dialogue between the two opposing ideas, i.e., the Heliocentric verses the Ptolemaic Geocentric model, the latter case being the orthodox doctrine of the time. His book entitled Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632 [21], led to the famous trial by the inquisition in which he was forced to recant his assertion that the Heliocentric model was superior and was consequently sentenced to life long house arrest. ...
Before the effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic, there had been continued debate about the future of Higher Education (HE) in the UK. It is now accepted that the effect of the pandemic will have a long-lasting effect on HE in the UK and elsewhere. This paper addresses the changes that are currently taking place, based on a strategy that aims to develop a future knowledge-based economy, following the UK governments 2019 landmark review of HE. It explores the underlying parallels between the current situation and certain historical events that catalysed the development of a new approach to HE in the past, which is very relevant today. In this context, the paper discusses why major changes in UK HE provision is now required as a response to the fact that although the cost of education is rising, employers are reporting that graduates are increasingly unprepared for the workplace. In this respect, the paper addresses a model for HE that focuses on `earn-as-you-learn’ apprenticeships and work-place-based learning. The key to this is the emphasis that the UK government is now placing on funding new `Technological Colleges’, in which students are trained by experts from the industry on a contractual basis, rather than by university academics with tenured positions.
... At this point we need to discuss the principle of relativity, basically introduced by Galilei [6], which states that the laws of physics are the same for force free relatively moving systems. It is possible to define an infinite number of coordinate transformations (relative velocity is realized as rotation in space time) which are formally valid coordinate transformations. ...
In this article the transformation of EM field energy due to relative movement is discussed. It is shown that the Lorentz transformation diverges to infinite energy at zero volume approaching a relative velocity of c. In the limit of small velocities the Lorentz transformation gives a three times higher field energy increase than the kinetic energy equation. The Euclidean transformation allows a description of kinetic energy as a pure relativistic effect of increasing experienced volume. In the limit of small velocities the Euclidean relativity transforms field energy in the same relation as the kinetic energy equation.
... As an examination o f the principle of empiricism has already demonstrated it is impossible to do physics in the complete absence o f any implicit cosmological assumptions: however well verified a theory may be by a body of evidence, there will always be infinitely many grossly ad hoc and aberrant rival theories that will fit the evidence just as convincingly -and infinitely many more that are empirically more successful. 3 It is, after all, the persistent and blanket exclusion, independently of empirical grounds, of the infinitely many ad hoc, non-explanatory rivals to successful theories that has made possible present-day, standard empiricist physics. ...
This thesis is concerned with that branch of the history of science which takes as its central problem the question of scientific progress, defined as the growth of knowledge and understanding about the world. It is an area of enquiry which has been suppressed, in recent years, by the development of historical methodologies which eschew all epistemological deliberations and their established ramifications. This thesis, therefore, addresses itself to the following areas. In Chapter One consideration is given to the degree to which the present ascendancy of contextual, social history of science depends upon formulating methodological strategies that deny the very legitimacy of a progress history of scientific ideas. These strategies are shown to depend upon the old definition of internalist, intellectual history of science, which drew upon related areas in the philosophy of science. Some basic arguments in favour of the possibility of progressive histories of scientific ideas, which have been ignored by the discipline as a whole, are rehearsed. Chapter Two is devoted to an account of how a present-day philosophy of science, aim-oriented empiricism, offers a solution to the problem of induction which, by demonstrating that scientific rationality has a historical dimension, provides a suitable historiographic framework for a progress-oriented history of scientific ideas. Chapter Three examines the work of Galileo in the light of this new historiographic framework. Firstly, it is demonstrated to be an option 7 for exegesis, an account of how ideally rational science ought to be which does not rationally reconstruct the past Secondly, it illuminates Galileo's work in significantly new ways, demonstrating that by making explicit the metaphysical dimension already implicit in Galileo's methodology, his work can be shown to have an underlying unity - and be part of a progressive tradition - in ways which other interpretations, distracted by the seeming disunity at the methodological level, fail to appreciate. Finally, Chapter Four considers the possibility of a beneficial, reciprocal relationship between developments in the philosophy of science and in progressive histories of scientific ideas.
... Galilean invariance is a synonym for the principle of relativity first described by Galileo in 1632 [7], according to which the laws of motion are the same in all inertial systems. In other words, the principle of relativity holds that the laws should be the same regardless of the observer measuring them. ...
Using the invariance of the law of cosines, as a very easy case to understand invariance, we will explain the Galilean invariance-the in-variance of Galilean transformation, the invariance of velocity addition formula, and invariance of the law of force.
... Not only: you have followed the same train of thoughts through which Galileo reached the concept of rectilinear inertia". For, Galileo in the Second Day of his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632, Galilei 1967) developed a reasoning whose synthesis has been just described. The teacher might read this important passage of the Dialogue (ivi, pp. ...
“Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon” (p. Newton 1846, p. 83). This is the famous first axiom or law of motion stated by Newton in his masterpiece The Mathematical principles of natural philosophy (ivi). Everywhere, in the courses of physics at the high school level the inertia principle is the first to be taught. However, there are many doubts that most of learners fully grasp its numerous and fundamental nuances, which are necessary for a satisfying introduction to physics. Therefore, I propose an interdisciplinary approach for the explanation of this principle in which history of science and analysis of the daily experiences are joined to offer a complete comprehension of the concept of inertia.
... In 1632 Galileo formulated in [13] the principle that no measurement inside the cabin of a ship can distinguish between a ship in uniform motion from one at absolute rest. In general, any two systems moving in the absence of acceleration are equivalent. ...
The inclusion of gravity into quantum mechanics is a century long quest. This paper presents a gedankenexperiment how gravity emerges from pure geometrical considerations in a flat space-time. The basic assumption of the gedankenexperiment is that any velocity is a probability mixture of moving forward and backward with light speed. Velocity becomes a non-continuously differentiable function. Acceleration is always zero except for the point in time where the direction of movement changes from forward to backward or from backward to forward. For this modelling, the force of gravitation emerges directly from the longitudinal Shapiro effect. To make this gedankenexperiment falsifiable, it is predicted under which circumstances absolute motion can be measured.
How do we know what is possible or impossible, what is inevitable or unattainable, or what would happen under which circumstances? Since modal facts seem distinctively mysterious and difficult to know, the epistemology of modality has historically been fraught with uncertainty and disagreement. The recent literature has been dominated by rationalist approaches that emphasise a priori reasoning (sometimes including direct intuition of possibility). Only recently have alternative approaches emerged which recognize a broader range of sources of modal knowledge. Yet even emerging non-rationalist views have tended to assign scientific investigation at best a supporting role. Our project in this book is to develop and defend a new approach to the epistemology of modal facts which assigns a central role to scientific investigation. According to modal naturalism, science (construed broadly) is our primary source of evidence concerning the modal facts.
It may seem surprising that some of the most radical ideas proposed by Paul K. Feyerabend have important aspects in common with those proposed by two of the most respected philosophers in the history of philosophy, Plato and Aristotle. Nonetheless, they do. Feyerabend’s principle of proliferation as developed in Against Method, for example, may remind us of Aristotle’s arguments for proliferation in making his case for democracy as the best form of government, principally in his Politics. And Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” in his Republic, gives support to Feyerabend’s position on how empirical evidence makes theoretical assumptions. Plato argues that the observer is misguided if he concludes that the real positions and motions of heavenly bodies can be determined by his observations. Plato’s approach to education would also be extremely congenial to Feyerabend, as would his use of the “Myth of the Metals” in Book III of the Republic that places the greatest obligation on the rulers of a society to ensure that all children get a good chance to develop their talents. Extraordinarily, this obligation is extended to women, as he shows in Book V.
Paul Feyerabend met Bertolt Brecht and frequently refers to Brecht in writing. Feyerabend’s characterizing to his own writings as “collage” parallels Brecht’s description of his own work as “montage,” both forms of art and film respectively. Feyerabend’s called himself a Dadaist referring to a post-WWI movement to which Brecht was originally sympathetic. Both Feyerabend and Brecht believed there was an ultimate unity of science and art. The two men also each had sympathy for Chinese culture, both ancient and Maoist. Feyerabend’s criticisms of the scientific methodology advocated by Imre Lakatos parallel Brecht’s criticisms of Georg Lukács in the “expressionism debate” in aesthetics.
In this contribution we identify, analyze and interpret Einstein's elevator as a paradigmatic thought experiment (TE) that shows how modern physics may surpass classical mechanics. On surface analyses we show that Einstein’s elevator is, in fact, a series of interrelated TE, TE1 through TE6, involving two frames of reference – or two systems of coordinates, K and K', deducing principle of relativity from Galileo – and two observers, an inside and outside observer. On deep analyses of Einstein's elevator appears a deconstructive TE featuring principle of relativity, destructing, falsifying Newton's theory, that does not hold on to principle of relativity, and constructing, verifying Einstein's, that does. On interpretation, admitting theoretical TE may have flaws as with regard to imaginability, conceptual and terminological coherence, we argue that TE are usually valid as arguments, and are rather considered antifallacies than fallacies. TE may develop on analysis from prima facie or secunda facie (in)conceivability to ideal (in)conceivability; our logical analyses validate Einstein’s elevator as a paradigmatic TE. Lastly, we may add two 21st-century conditions to (e.g. Karl Popper's) view of growth of science –global cross-culturalism and environmental pragmaticism– to arrive at a balanced view of progress of science and society1.
This chapter explores Pyrrho’s supposed opponent, Aristotle, and his take on reality and time. Aristotle is famous for rejecting any understanding of reality that is not based on human logic. For Aristotle, reality needs to be channelled through human logic so as to cohere and be of use to human affairs. To establish this, he puts forward the Principle of Non-contradiction, which is, as is well known, the second classical principle, along with the first (Identity) and the third (Excluded Middle). Because the Principle of Identity partitions its logical universe into exactly two parts (“is” and “is not”), the Principle of Non-contradiction creates a dichotomy wherein the two parts become mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive, and differential. In doing so, Aristotle partitions not only reality but time as well. From this crucial moment in western history, time and reality become unique, autonomous, and accountable entities ready to be mastered by any mind that lets itself be governed not only by classification and order but, more broadly, by an unfettered human logic.
Copernicus proposed a heliocentric cosmology which initiated the scientific revolution. Further important contributions came from Galilei, Kepler, and Descartes, before a coherent mathematics-mechanical worldview was presented by Newton. According to this view, nature is operating according to laws that can be formulated mathematically. This inspired the idea, strongly advocated by logical positivism, that mathematics is the language of science. This brought together the Modern glorification of mathematics, claiming mathematics ensures scientific unity, objectivity, and neutrality. This view coagulated as a paradigmatic dogma portraying science and mathematics as isolated phenomena not involved in any social or political complexities. This idea engenders an inadequate conception of science and mathematics.
It is widely acknowledged that the Galilean Relativity Principle, according to which the laws of classical systems are the same in all inertial frames in relative motion, has played an important role in the development of modern physics. It is also commonly believed that this principle holds the key to answering why, for example, we do not notice the orbital velocity of the Earth as we go about our day. And yet, I argue in this paper that the precise content of this principle is ambiguous: standard presentations fail to distinguish between two principles that are ultimately inequivalent, the "External Galilean Relativity Principle" (EGRP) and the "Internal Galilean Relativity Principle" (IGRP). I demonstrate that EGRP and IGRP play distinct roles in physics and that many classical systems that satisfy IGRP fail to satisfy EGRP. I further show that the Relativity Principle introduced by Einstein in 1905-which is not restricted to classical systems-also leads to two inequivalent principles. I conclude by noting that the phenomenon originally captured by Galileo's famous ship passage is much more general than contemporary discussions in the philosophy of symmetries suggest.
The publication of Lakoff and Núñez’s book, Where Mathematics Comes From (2000), which established links between metaphorical cognition and mathematics, led immediately thereafter to a broadening interest among mathematicians, cognitive scientists, and semioticians on the relation between sign structures and mathematical ideas and methods (for example, Rotman 2006; Turner 2012; Danesi and Bockarova 2014). The main area of interest has been mathematics education (Radford 2010; Presmeg et al. 2016; Sáenz-Ludlow and Kadunz 2016). Research on the Lakoff-Núñez perspective of mathematics has continued in all areas, not just the pedagogical one. However, as far as can be told, the theory has rarely been applied to examining the semiotic roots of algebraic method, despite the fact that it presents itself as a system of signs and structures that are utilized not only to do mathematics at an abstract level, but to model its inner workings. The purpose of this essay is to provide such an application in terms of a specific version of semiotic analysis called modeling systems theory (MST) (Lotman 1991; Sebeok and Danesi 2000; Nöth 2018).
The revolution in our conceptions of time and space from Einstein’s theory of relativity is described, with an overview of how the special theory of relativity was developed from a standpoint of preserving the laws of physics and electromagnetism for all observers. The speed of light, provided as a fundamental constant in Maxwell’s equation, inspires Einstein’s theory, which can be explained using the notion of a light clock, with subsequent relative effects on time for different observers. The notions of spacetime and the light cone are explained based on a standpoint of “world lines” in which time is a dimension of space. Broadening Einstein’s theory to apply toward accelerating observers or those near large masses gives rise to the general theory of relativity, and the nature of curved space and its manifestations are described in a historical context. Eddington’s work in measuring the deflection of light, solutions to Einstein’s general relativity by Karl Schwarzschild, and the predicted shifts in the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit are described. The resulting new perspectives from Einstein’s theory provides the basis for new models of time and space developed by Lemaitre and Friedman, that explains the expansion of the universe.KeywordsEinsteinSpecial relativityGeneral relativityCosmologyCurved spaceGravitational lensing
Is economics a science? What distinguishes it from other sciences, both natural and social? Like many of the natural sciences, its theories are mathematically complex. Yet, like the social sciences, its 'laws' are largely everyday generalizations. Can such generalizations, which are far from universal truths, constitute a science? Does economics have a distinctive method? The first edition answered these and other questions about the scientific status of economics and its underlying methodology. In this fully updated new edition, Dan Hausman reflects on developments in both economics and the philosophy of economics over the last thirty years. It includes a new chapter on the methodology of macroeconomics, an updated discussion on the use of models, and new discussions causal inference and behavioural economics and their implications for theory appraisal. It is the perfect choice for a new generation of students studying the methodology of modern economics.
Space and Time are the primary and essential notions in the construction of physical theories. The physical meaning of these unobservable entities and their relation to sensible matter have changed significantly with the evolution of the fundamental theories of physics. We will explore this evolution from the early days of modern physics to the present time. This will then serve as a conceptual basis for understanding the gravitational physics of dynamics and relativity.
The notion of the simultaneity of physical events in time defines the physical notion of global time and its synchronisation. The correct understanding of simultaneity is at the very basis of the theories of relativity, as emphasised by Einstein during the exposition of the Special Theory of Relativity. However, this is a notion where the propagation of light and the time in spatially separated clocks get mixed up, determining the structure of the relativistic transformations. I present a thorough and rigorous discussion of simultaneity and clock synchronisation, contrasting the important insights of Poincaré and Einstein. A critical examination of Einstein’s analysis of the relativity of simultaneity is the highlight, revealing a fatal inconsistency associated with Einstein’s light hypothesis.
A general structure for space-time that preserves the classical notion of absolute time, and to which we refer as Proto-Galilean space-time, is presented. In this setting, space-time is modeled as a general fiber bundle over the time axis. The motion of a particle is a section of the fiber bundle. A recent framework for continuum mechanics, where configurations are represented by sections of a fiber bundle over the body manifold, is used to formulate the dynamics of a particle and the dynamics of a continuous body in a Proto-Galilean space-time.
The author’s task is to draw attention once again to the philosophical and historical research method invented by A.Koyré, who, according to many, revolutionized historiography. The aim is to show the dependence of major scientific discoveries on fundamental transformations in philosophy. From this perspective, the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century is considered: Galileo’s discovery of the inertial movement was determined by a change in ideas about the Universe. The closed, hierarchically ordered world of Aristotle, characteristic of Antiquity and the Middle Ages, was replaced by a picture of an infinite Universe. In it, the same laws apply to celestial bodies and the Earth, and the circular motion of bodies is replaced by the motion along an infinite straight line, i. e., inertial. In this connection, Galileo’s Dialogues are carefully and thoroughly examined, in which he appears not only as a brilliant scientist, but also as a Socratically minded philosopher. The discoveries of Galileo and Newton are correctly evaluated as the creation of new foundations of scientific theory as compared with those previous, and the reasons for the appearance of such new foundations are explained. The novelty of the article also lies in the fact that the success of Koyré’s analysis is presented in the context of a dispute — a dialogue of the greatest scientific minds — of Aristotle and Plato, Descartes and Newton. Highly appreciating the achievements of A.Koyré, the author dwells on some of the shortcomings of his method: underestimation of social transformations and lack of attention to the reverse effect of science on philosophy. It also explains the limitations of the logical-deductive movement of thought in science, which determined philosophers, in particular, Kant, to come to the idea of the need to create meaningful logic, although an unknowable thing-in-itself appeared as the content.
In this paper, we consider two dimensional tidal dynamics equations in a bounded domain and address a distributed optimal control problem of minimizing a suitable cost functional with state constraints of integral type (on the velocity field). It is well known that the Pontryagin maximum principle provides the first-order necessary conditions of optimality. We show the existence of an optimal control and establish Pontryagin’s maximum principle for the state constrained optimization problem for the tidal dynamics system using Ekeland’s variational principle and characterize optimal control through the adjoint variable.
Arguments from perceptual variation challenge the view that colors are objective properties of objects, properties that objects have independent of how they are perceived. This paper attempts, first, to diagnose one central reason why arguments from perceptual variation seem especially challenging for objectivists about color. Second, we offer a response to this challenge, claiming that once we focus on determinate colors rather than the determinables they determine, a response to arguments from perceptual variation becomes apparent. Third, our nominal opponents are relationalist (like Cohen in The red and the real: an essay on color ontology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) and we will argue that the main argument for rejecting objectivism commits the relationalist to a position that is more radical than the one he would wish to endorse. Fourth, we suggest that insight into which properties could be relational may be found by looking to our best scientific theories.
This last chapter takes up the challenges to value cognitivism deployed across the book, drawing in part on Scheler, Husserl, Hartmann, and other classic phenomenologists to set up the main tenets of phenomenological axiology, and confronting contemporary metaethics. Five principles for a phenomenological theory of values and value experience establish the foundations for a cognitive view of practical reason. The relations among value cognition, will, and action are discussed, drawing on Pfänder’s phenomenology of the will. Compatibility between value pluralism and universalism is argued for. An assessment of the significance of “material” axiology for an “examined life” closes the book.
Bilgi edinmenin en etkili yollarından bir tanesi olarak değerlendirilen düşünce deneyleri bilim insanları ya da düşünürler tarafından kendi çalışma alanları içerisinde sıklıkla başvurulan düşünsel bir araçtır. Bilimsel konulara cevap vermek amacıyla gerçekleştirilen düşünce deneyleri bilimsel düşünce deneyleri olarak değerlendirilirken, felsefi sorunlara yönelik kullanılan düşünce deneyleri ise felsefi düşünce deneyleri olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu kapsamda makalede ilk olarak bilimsel ve felsefi düşünce deneyleri arasındaki farklılıklar belirlenmektedir. Özellikle, epistemoloji alanı içerisinde yer alan tartışmalarda felsefi düşünce deneylerine sıklıkla ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu nedenle çalışmanın devamında epistemolojide önemli görüşlerden bir tanesi olan ve doğal dünyanın en temelde fiziksel olduğu ve fiziksel yasalarla her şeyin açıklanabileceği iddiasında bulunan fizikalizm düşüncesine karşı ileri sürülmüş bilgi argümanına yer verilmektedir. Bilgi argümanı kısaca sadece bilinçli deneyim yoluyla elde edilebilen ve fiziksel olarak ifade edilemeyen öznel deneyimlerin ve özelliklerin olduğunu savunmaktadır. Buna göre, başka bir bilinçli varlık hakkında bütün fiziksel bilgiye sahip olan birinin, o varlığın qualia gibi öznel deneyimlerine sahip olmasının nasıl bir his olduğu konusundaki bilgilerden yoksun olabileceği fikri savunulmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, makalenin temel savı fizikalizm gibi epistemolojik bir teze Mary’nin Odası, ‘Yarasa Olmak Nasıl Bir Şeydir’, Marslı ve Felsefi Zombi gibi felsefi düşünce deneyleri bağlamında çeşitli filozoflarca nasıl itiraz edildiğini ve düşünce deneylerinin bu bağlamda nasıl kullanıldığını ortaya koymaktır. - Thought experiments, one of the most effective ways of acquiring knowledge, are an intellectual tool frequently used by scientists or thinkers in their fields of study. Thought experiments used to respond to scientific issues are considered scientific thought experiments, while thought experiments used for philosophical problems are called philosophical thought experiments. In this context, firstly, the differences between scientific and philosophical thought experiments are determined in the article. In particular, philosophical thought experiments are often needed in discussions within the field of epistemology. For this reason, in the rest of the study, the knowledge argument put forward against the idea of physicalism, which is one of the important views in epistemology and which claims that the natural world is basically physical and that everything can be explained by physical laws is included. The knowledge argument briefly argues that there are non-physical properties and information that can only be discovered through conscious experience. Accordingly, it is argued that someone who has all physical knowledge about another conscious may lack knowledge of what it would feel like to have subjective experiences of that entity such as qualia. Consequently, the main idea of the article is to reveal how an epistemological thesis has been questioned by various philosophers in the context of philosophical thought experiments such as Mary’s room, ‘What is it like to be a Bat’, The Martian and the Philosophical Zombie.
Now that in the first paper I have analysed the functions of epistemic narrativity for the process of scientific modeling in the follow up paper the analytical perspective will change gears and focus on the semiologic practices of scientific modeling as well as their epistemic functions for the development of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The interformative process, described here can only be understood when multiple levels of modeling are differentiated. We must therefore distinguish three levels of modeling: primary, secondary and tertiary. In order to describe this process of three-fold modeling, I first turn to Einstein’s 1936 text “Physics and Reality,” which presents a metareflection of epistemic practices in theoretical physics. From this it will become clear that it is necessary to distinguish the modeling levels, because each level comprises its own possibilities and restrictions. This differentiation hopefully leads to a better understanding of theoretical modeling in physics from the point of view of literary studies. In the second part of the paper I focus on the process of interformation in physics and discuss the development of the theory of special relativity from a systematical perspective.
The paper examines dialogues and reflections on dialogues by Albert Einstein, Bertolt Brecht and Alfred Döblin at the beginning and the end of the Weimar Republic, analyzing the aesthetics and the history of the genre in its sociohistorical context. The results can be outlined in the following four theses: 1) During the Weimar Republic, dialogue becomes a productive medium of self-understanding for scientific and social modernity, making it possible to coordinate the dominant discourses of politics, literature and physics. 2) Referring to the Renaissance dialogue, historicizing becomes an important interdiscursive method, providing an insight into the relations of different social systems in historical distance. 3) Dialogue, in the Galilean tradition, offers experimental experiences that effect shifts of paradigm by changing points of view. 4) As an ideologically versatile form, dialogue can structure various societal transitions.
This essay is a critical appreciation of the scholarly work on Galileo’s trial by Mons. Sergio Pagano (Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives since 2007). Pagano has argued convincingly that the 1616 precept to Galileo by Inquisition commissary Seghizzi is authentic and not a forgery. This is an important accomplishment because it settles a controversy that has raged since the 1860’s, with wide-ranging cultural repercussions. However, the precept’s documentary authenticity does not prove its factual accuracy, nor its juridical legitimacy. Indeed, it can be shown that the precept was illegitimate, because it contradicts Pope Paul V’s orders and cardinal-inquisitor Robert Bellarmine’s testimony. Pagano apparently conflates, and equivocates among, these three concepts, as well as among the contents of four distinct orders to Galileo regarding Copernicanism: Pope Paul’s orders not to believe and not to discuss, Bellarmine’s warning not to hold or defend as true or as biblically compatible, and Seghizzi’s precept not to hold or teach in any way.
The chapter traces the origin of Cultural Studies as a scholarly field that conjoins, centrally, anthropology, sociology, feminism, and philosophy. It is characterised by its opposition to scientism, its explicit epistemological relativism, its rejection of the Enlightenment project, and, in places, its ontological idealism and distrust of science. From the early 1990s cultural studies has become institutionalised in science education with the establishment of a journal and creation of strands in major research conferences. Its links to the philosophy and pedagogy of constructivism are explicit, so too its links to Critical Theory. Arguments against the radical idealism of cultural studies are advanced. The contrast is made with the ontological realism of the physicist/philosopher Mario Bunge whose arguments for the symbiosis philosophy and physics, for a realist interpretation of quantum physics, for the Enlightenment project, and for informed scientism are outlined.
The chapter details my first academic appointment as a lecturer in philosophy of education at Sydney Teachers College; the tumultuous college-wide debates about assessment; the impact of ‘radical education’ in the college, including the conduct of a large ‘counter course’. It details my appointment to UNSW and beginning of my personal HPS&ST teaching and research. It covers the all important sabbatical year spent at the Boston University Centre for History and Philosophy of Science and the enormous influence on me of BU staff: Michael Martin, Bob Cohen, Marx Wartofsky, and Abner Shimony. Apart from so many other things, it was the beginning of my work on Galileo, particularly his pendulum studies. The unfortunate decline of both philosophy of education and of HPS at UNSW are noted. The chapter discusses the MA thesis on Galileo’s physics I wrote for Sydney University, and which emerged from my BU studies with Shimony.
I present a systematic interpretation of the foundational purpose of constructions in ancient Greek geometry. I argue that Greek geometers were committed to an operationalist foundational program, according to which all of mathematics—including its entire ontology and epistemology—is based entirely on concrete physical constructions. On this reading, key foundational aspects of Greek geometry are analogous to core tenets of 20th-century operationalist/positivist/constructivist/intuitionist philosophy of science and mathematics. Operationalism provides coherent answers to a range of traditional philosophical problems regarding classical mathematics, such as the epistemic warrant and generality of diagrammatic reasoning, superposition, and the relation between constructivism and proof by contradiction. Alleged logical flaws in Euclid (implicit diagrammatic reasoning, superposition) can be interpreted as sound operationalist reasoning. Operationalism also provides a compelling philosophical motivation for the otherwise inexplicable Greek obsession with cube duplication, angle trisection, and circle quadrature. Operationalism makes coherent sense of numerous specific choices made in this tradition, and suggests new interpretations of several solutions to these problems. In particular, I argue that: Archytas’s cube duplication was originally a single-motion machine; Diocles’s cissoid was originally traced by a linkage device; Greek conic section theory was thoroughly constructive, based on the conic compass; in a few cases, string-based constructions of conic sections were used instead; pointwise constructions of curves were rejected in foundational contexts by Greek mathematicians, with good reason. Operationalism enables us to view the classical geometrical tradition as a more unified and philosophically aware enterprise than has hitherto been recognised.
Levels of reading comprehension and ability to do basic mathematics are shockingly low among primary-age children in low-income countries, despite the efforts of global education actors. This essay will argue that to make real progress on improving learning, actors in the sector need to prioritize a few key goals – in particular foundational literacy and numeracy – monitor progress to achieve them, and hold ourselves collectively accountable for improving results. Recent efforts such as the World Bank’s Foundational Learning Compact show promise but will require the support and scrutiny of other actors.
This article focuses on Descartes’s vision on how the dimensions of the organism connect with each other. Re-reading Descartes is proposed as an antidote against endemic cultural dualism, in a world in which medical institutions, still describe human beings using dualistic terms such as ‘psychosomatic’, ‘body psychotherapy’, or ‘body-mind’ systems. It also introduces Descartes as an early scientific medical researcher who developed a scientific interactionist and organismic approach of embodiment. This paper is framed by my interest in the development of an ‘organismic psychology’, which assumes that physiological, behavioural, and psychological routines are embedded heterogeneous cogwheels of a human being. I have observed that such an approach is particularly useful with psychosomatic patients, and most forms of body psychotherapy.
This paper provides an analysis of explanatory constraints and their role in scientific explanation. This analysis clarifies main characteristics of explanatory constraints, ways in which they differ from “standard” explanatory factors, and the unique roles they play in scientific explanation. While current philosophical work appreciates two main types of explanatory constraints, this paper suggests a new taxonomy: law-based constraints, mathematical constraints, and causal constraints. This classification helps capture unique features of distinct constraint types, the different roles they play in explanation, and it includes causal constraints, which are often overlooked in this literature.
Mathematics would appear to be the most suitable tool we have at our command, but does “truth” have the same meaning in mathematics as in physics? Which should we prefer: the beauty of a formal mathematical deduction, or the insight provided to us by keen experimentation and a careful observation of nature. How should we choose when alternative competing conclusions can be drawn from the same observations?
Let's begin with an old example. In De Rerum Naturua , Lucretius presented a thought experiment to show that space is infinite. We imagine ourselves near the alleged edge of space; we throw a spear; we see it either sail through the ‘edge’ or we see it bounce back. In the former case the ‘edge’ isn't the edge, after all. In the latter case, there must be something beyond the ‘edge’ that repelled the spear. Either way, the ‘edge’ isn't really an edge of space, after all. So space is infinite.
Technology purposely channels, concentrates, and transforms energy, matter, and information to improve the human condition. Continuous energy-rich fossil fuel use is the root cause of environmental degradation. Since matter is embodied energy and humankind’s demand for stuff is at an all-time high, energy sources directly affect future ecological prospects. The proposed solution of shifting to 100% renewable energy is complicated by the need for high embodied energy industrial processes. Understanding abstract concepts of energy is critical to finding solutions for unintended consequences at the root of environmental problems. This chapter demystifies energy terms and establishes conceptual foundations for designers to consider as they work through the primary challenges of consumption.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.