Absolute representations and modern physics

Famously, Adrian Moore has argued that an absolute representation of reality are possible: that it is possible to represent reality from no particular point of view. Moreover, Moore believes that such absolute representations are a desideratum of physics. Recently, however, debates in the philosophy of physics have arisen regarding the apparent impossibility of an absolute representation of certain aspects of nature in light of our current best theories of physics. Throughout this article, we take gravitational energy as a particular case study of an aspect of nature that seemingly does not admit of an absolute representation. There is, therefore, a prima facie tension between Moore's a priori case on the one hand, and the state-of-play in modern physics on the other. This article overcomes this tension by demonstrating how, when formulated in the correct way, modern physics admits of an absolute representation of gravitational energy after all. In so doing, the article offers a detailed case study of Moore's argument for absolute representation, clarifying its structure and bringing it into contact with the distinction drawn by philosophers of physics between coordinate-freedom and coordinate-independence, as well as the philosophy of spacetime physics

Changing Working Environments in Philosophy: Reflections from a Case Study

There is an "under-representation problem” in philosophy departments and journals. Empirical data suggest that while we have seen some improvements since the 1990s, the rate of change has slowed down. Some posit that philosophy has disciplinary norms making it uniquely resistant to change (Antony and Cudd 2012; Dotson 2012; Hassoun et al. 2022). In this paper, we present results from an empirical case study of a philosophy department that achieved and maintained male-female gender parity among its faculty as early as 2014. Our analysis extends beyond matters of gender parity because that is only one, albeit important, dimension of inclusion. We build from the case study to reflect on strategies that may catalyze change

The Toll of the Tolman Effect: On the Status of Classical Temperature in General Relativity

The Tolman effect is well-known in relativistic cosmology but rarely discussed outside it. That is surprising because the effect -- that systems extended over a varying gravitational potential exhibit temperature gradients while in thermal equilibrium -- conflicts with ordinary classical thermodynamics. In this paper we try to better understand this effect from a foundational perspective. We make five claims. First, as Tolman knew, it was Einstein who first discovered the effect, and furthermore, Einstein's derivation helps us appreciate how robust it is. Second, the standard interpretation of the effect in terms of 'local temperature' leads to the breakdown of much of classical thermodynamics. Third, one can rescue thermodynamics by using Einstein's preferred interpretation in terms of the 'wahre Temperatur' -- what we'll call global temperature -- but it too has some costs. Fourth, the effect is perhaps best understood in terms of clocks as opposed to energy loss. Fifth, inspired by a proposal of Einstein's elsewhere, we sketch an interpretation of the effect in terms of a third novel temperature, which we call the 'wahre-local temperature'. On this view, temperature -- and thermodynamics -- is defined only in relation to local clocks. In sum, we view the fragmentation of temperature in thermodynamics as a natural and expected result of the fragmentation of time in general relativity

Letter Writing to Promote Philosophical Reflection About Medicine

Letters to the editor (LTEs) are a versatile short-format forum with unique characteristics to allow for cross-pollination of different kinds of philosophical reflection about medicine. Philosophical LTEs have both benefits and possible drawbacks. We draw on a case study to warn against misuse through “CV inflation,” where low-quality ideas may favor a scholar’s publishing metrics more than scholarly debate. Factual inaccuracies in LTEs have implications for authors, publishing, and indexing, and we argue for prudence by editors and restraint by scholars, inviting them to focus on quality, rather than the quantity of LTEs published. When writing LTEs, rigor, readability, and relevance are needed

Good VIBES only

How to articulate the common ontological commitments of symmetry-related models of physical theories? This is a central (perhaps the central) question in the philosophical literature on symmetry transformations in physics; recently, Dewar (2019) has proposed a strategy for answering this question which goes by the name of 'external sophistication'. And yet: this strategy has been accused of being hopelessly obscure by, among others, Martens and Read (2020). In this article, I demonstrate that not all cases of external sophistication are subject to this charge---for reasons which will become clear, the cases for which this is not so give us what I'll call 'good VIBES'. Having established this, I then go on to consider good VIBES in the context of the analysis of hidden symmetries, in dialogue with recent work on that topic by Bielińska and Jacobs (2024)

When Are Small-Scale Field Experiments in Solar Geoengineering Worth Pursuing?

We propose a set of heuristics—scientific rigor, safety, usefulness, and transparency—for assessing the pursuitworthiness of small-scale field experiments in solar geoengineering research. Rather than offering a fixed logic of pursuit, we emphasize that these heuristics should operate as part of a dynamic and iterative evaluative process within the solar geoengineering research community, responsive to changing modeling priorities, new data, and shifting ethical and political landscapes. We argue that such experiments must be understood within the broader context of climate modeling research, where their primary role is to improve model components and identify further uncertainties. As debates about “moonshot” research and urgent science continue to evolve, our heuristics offer a way for the community, and for potential funders, to evaluate field experiments without abandoning the standards that guide responsible inquiry. Although our heuristics presuppose the pursuitworthiness of solar geoengineering research as a whole, they provide a structured framework for evaluating which field experiments are worth undertaking and why

Jury Theorems for Peer Review

Peer review is often taken to be the main form of quality control on academic research. Usually journals carry this out. However, parts of maths and physics appear to have a parallel, crowd-sourced model of peer review, where papers are posted on the arXiv to be publicly discussed. In this paper we argue that crowd-sourced peer review is likely to do better than journal-solicited peer review at sorting papers by quality. Our argument rests on two key claims. First, crowd-sourced peer review will lead on average to more reviewers per paper than journal-solicited peer review. Second, due to the wisdom of the crowds, more reviewers will tend to make better judgments than fewer. We make the second claim precise by looking at the Condorcet Jury Theorem as well as two related jury theorems developed specifically to apply to peer review

Processes and Continuity: A Look from Quantum Gravity

Process jargon is widespread in the physical sciences. Beginning with the work of Wesley Salmon, several accounts in philosophy of science have attempted to provide a definition of "process" compatible with scientists' understanding of causation and explanation. The proposed characterisation links processes to the properties of the spacetime they inhabit as regards continuity and genuine causality. Recent developments in theories of quantum gravity challenge the validity of process ontologies at the fundamental scale. In particular, this paper examines how arguments based on minimal length in the literature question the traditional definition of process. Process realism does not favour the processualist against these arguments. I conclude that certain theories of quantum gravity prevent a processual representation of the intended phenomena at the fundamental scale because they predict a violation of either the spatiotemporal specification or the causality conditions. In the end, the processualist faces a dilemma: either weaken the accepted definition of process without falling into substance ontologies, or hope that problematic theories of quantum gravity will be disconfirmed

One-Factor versus Two-Factor Theory of Delusion: Replies to Sullivan-Bissett and Noordhof

I would like to thank Sullivan-Bissett and Noordhof for their stimulating comments on my 2023 paper in Neuroethics. In this reply, I will (1) articulate some deeper disagreements that may underpin our disagreement on the nature of delusion, (2) clarify their misrepresentation of my previous arguments as a defence of the two-factor theory in particular, and (3) finally conduct a comparison between the Maherian one-factor theory and the two-factor theory, showing that the two-factor theory is better supported by evidence