Comparing theories: the dynamics of changing vocabulary. A case-study in relativity theory

There are several first-order logic (FOL) axiomatizations of special relativity theory in the literature, all looking essentially different but claiming to axiomatize the same physical theory. In this paper, we elaborate a comparison, in the framework of mathematical logic, between these FOL theories for special relativity. For this comparison, we use a version of mathematical definability theory in which new entities can also be defined besides new relations over already available entities. In particular, we build an interpretation of the reference-frame oriented theory SpecRel into the observationally oriented Signalling theory of James Ax. This interpretation provides SpecRel with an operational/experimental semantics. Then we make precise, "quantitative" comparisons between these two theories via using the notion of definitional equivalence. This is an application of logic to the philosophy of science and physics in the spirit of Johan van Benthem's work.Comment: 27 pages, 8 figures. To appear in Springer Book series Trends in Logi

Axiomatizing relativistic dynamics without conservation postulates

A part of relativistic dynamics (or mechanics) is axiomatized by simple and purely geometrical axioms formulated within first-order logic. A geometrical proof of the formula connecting relativistic and rest masses of bodies is presented, leading up to a geometric explanation of Einstein's famous $E=mc^2$. The connection of our geometrical axioms and the usual axioms on the conservation of mass, momentum and four-momentum is also investigated.Comment: 21 pages, 7 figure

Twin Paradox and the logical foundation of relativity theory

We study the foundation of space-time theory in the framework of first-order logic (FOL). Since the foundation of mathematics has been successfully carried through (via set theory) in FOL, it is not entirely impossible to do the same for space-time theory (or relativity). First we recall a simple and streamlined FOL-axiomatization SpecRel of special relativity from the literature. SpecRel is complete with respect to questions about inertial motion. Then we ask ourselves whether we can prove usual relativistic properties of accelerated motion (e.g., clocks in acceleration) in SpecRel. As it turns out, this is practically equivalent to asking whether SpecRel is strong enough to "handle" (or treat) accelerated observers. We show that there is a mathematical principle called induction (IND) coming from real analysis which needs to be added to SpecRel in order to handle situations involving relativistic acceleration. We present an extended version AccRel of SpecRel which is strong enough to handle accelerated motion, in particular, accelerated observers. Among others, we show that the Twin Paradox becomes provable in AccRel, but it is not provable without IND.Comment: 24 pages, 6 figure

Extending List’s levels

Christian List (Noûs, forthcoming, 2018, [24]) has recently proposed a category-theoretic model of a system of levels, applying it to various pertinent metaphysical questions. We modify and extend this framework to correct some minor defects and better adapt it to application in philosophy of science. This includes a richer use of category theoretic ideas and some illustrations using social choice theory

Topological reversibility and causality in feed-forward networks

Systems whose organization displays causal asymmetry constraints, from evolutionary trees to river basins or transport networks, can be often described in terms of directed paths (causal flows) on a discrete state space. Such a set of paths defines a feed-forward, acyclic network. A key problem associated with these systems involves characterizing their intrinsic degree of path reversibility: given an end node in the graph, what is the uncertainty of recovering the process backwards until the origin? Here we propose a novel concept, \textit{topological reversibility}, which rigorously weigths such uncertainty in path dependency quantified as the minimum amount of information required to successfully revert a causal path. Within the proposed framework we also analytically characterize limit cases for both topologically reversible and maximally entropic structures. The relevance of these measures within the context of evolutionary dynamics is highlighted.Comment: 9 pages, 3 figure

Divergent mathematical treatments in utility theory

In this paper I study how divergent mathematical treatments affect mathematical modelling, with a special focus on utility theory. In particular I examine recent work on the ranking of information states and the discounting of future utilities, in order to show how, by replacing the standard analytical treatment of the models involved with one based on the framework of Nonstandard Analysis, diametrically opposite results are obtained. In both cases, the choice between the standard and nonstandard treatment amounts to a selection of set-theoretical parameters that cannot be made on purely empirical grounds. The analysis of this phenomenon gives rise to a simple logical account of the relativity of impossibility theorems in economic theory, which concludes the paper

Where would we be without counterfactuals?

Huw Price gives his inaugural lecture as Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy. Bertrand Russell’s celebrated essay “On the Notion of Cause” was first delivered to the Aristotelian Society on 4 November 1912, as Russell’s Presidential Address. The piece is best known for a passage in which its author deftly positions himself between the traditional metaphysics of causation and the British crown, firing broadsides in both directions: “The law of causality”, Russell declares, “Like much that passes muster in philosophy, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” To mark the lecture’s centenary, we offer a contemporary view of the issues Russell here puts on the table, and of the health or otherwise, at the end of the essay’s first century, of his notorious conclusion