Philosophy of Physical Science, Miscellaneous

Ignited by Einstein and Bohr a century ago, the philosophical struggle about Reality is yet unfinished, with no signs of a swift resolution. Despite vast technological progress fueled by the iconic Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen paper (EPR) [1] [2] [3], the intricate link between ontic and epistemic aspects of Quantum Theory (QT) has greatly hindered our grip on Reality and further progress in physical theory. Fallacies concealed by tortuous logical negations made EPR comprehension much harder than it could have been had Einstein written (...) it himself in German. EPR is plagued with preconceptions about what a physical property is, the 'Uncertainty Principle', and the Principle of Locality. Numerous interpretations of QT vis à vis Reality exist and are keenly disputed [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. This is the first of a series of articles arguing for a novel physical interpretation I call ‘The Ontic Probability Interpretation’ (TOPI). A gradual explanation of TOPI is given intertwined with a meticulous logico-philosophical scrutiny of EPR, with Part I focusing on the meaning of Einstein’s ‘incompleteness’ claim for QT: a conceptual confusion, a preconception about Reality, and a flawed dichotomy are shown to be severe obstacles for the EPR argument to succeed. Part II completes the analysis, proving EPR claim of ‘incompleteness’ for QT is fallacious [12]. Part III further develops TOPI, while scrutinizing the mythical ‘Schrödinger’s Cat’, as well as the ‘Basis’ and ‘Measurement’ pseudo-problems [13]. Part IV introduces QR/TOPI: a new theory that solves the century-old problem of integrating Special Relativity with Quantum Theory [14]. (shrink)

Most philosophical accounts on scientific theories are affected by three dogmas or ingrained attitudes. These dogmas have led philosophers to choose between analyzing the internal structure of theories or their historical evolution. In this paper, I turn these three dogmas upside down. I argue (i) that mathematical practices are not epistemically neutral, (ii) that the morphology of theories can be very complex, and (iii) that one should view theoretical knowledge as the combination of internal factors and their intrinsic historicity.

[To be presented at PSA 2018] -/- The gauge/gravity duality and its relation to the possible emergence of gravity from quantum physics has been much discussed. Recently, however, Sebastian De Haro has argued that the very notion of a duality precludes emergence, given what he calls the internal view of dualities, on which the dual theories are physically equivalent. However, I argue that De Haro's argument for the internal view is not convincing, and we do not have good reasons to (...) adopt it. In turn, I propose we adopt the external view, on which dual theories are not physically equivalent, instead. (shrink)

Criticisms of Karl Popper’s critical rationalist epistemology are often confused and misleading. In part that is due to Popper’s somewhat lax use of language, in which technical terms are used in more than one sense. I attempt to clarify Popper’s views by regimenting his terminology. The result is offered as a clear and concise exposition of the main points of Popper’s epistemology. This is an updated version of a paper that was published in Cosmos + Taxis 6 (6+7): 49-54 (2019).

Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity was once the leading theory in theoretical physics. Unfortunately the theory describes macroscopic reality without a clear link with the the microcosm in respect to the properties of spacetime. However the theory of General Relativity has proved to predict macroscopic phenomena in a very accurate way. Nowadays most theoretical physicists use the conceptual framework of quantum theory. So it is not surprisingly that the question about the “true nature” of spacetime becomes very intrigue.

Special relativity has changed the fundamental view on space and time since Einstein introduced it in 1905. It substitutes four dimensional spacetime for the absolute space and time of Newtonian mechanics. It is believed that the validities of Lorentz invariants are fully confirmed empirically for the last one hundred years and therefore its status are canonical underlying all physical principles. However, spacetime metric is a geometric approach on nature when we interpret the natural phenomenon. A geometric flaw on this will (...) be exhibited and the alternative is suggested. The reasonable geometric model of space and time is a three dimensional space which is translating along the time direction. This model legitimately represents the true characteristic of nature. (shrink)

We think of kinetic energy (KE) as a quantity possessed by rest mass in motion. But somehow electromagnetic (EM) radiation transports KE across space without any rest mass. In addition, a single photon passing through a double slit diffracts into multiple paths in space without affecting its KE. This is hard to explain. Quantum theories that confront the double slit problem do not address these two issues directly. The ontology of radiation KE is examined which leads to some new ideas (...) as to the nature of KE transmission by radiation. (shrink)

This paper attempts to decipher what we really mean when we use the word "Science" by briefly exploring the criterion of "predictive power" with respect to the demarcation problem. It is essentially an articulation of Lakatos' view of Science and attempts to show that predictive power is quintessential to science.

In this essay we analyze the question of the origin of purpose. Due to the overwhelming success of science in explaining phenomena, it is often asked, when, and how science could explain purpose and consciousness by use of purely mechanical laws. Here I argue that such a reduction is impossible.

Defined are gravitational formulas in terms of Planck units and units of $\hbar c$. Mass is not assigned as a constant property but is instead treated as a discrete event defined by units of Planck mass with gravity as an interaction between these units, the gravitational orbit as the sum of these mass-mass interactions and the gravitational coupling constant as a measure of the frequency of these interactions and not the magnitude of the gravitational force itself. Each particle that is (...) in the mass-state (defined by a unit of Planck mass) per unit of Planck time is directly linked to every other particle also in the mass-state by a discrete unit of $m_P v^2 r = \hbar c$, the velocity of a gravitational orbit is summed from these individual $v^2$. As this approach presumes a digital time, it is suitable for use in programming Simulation Hypothesis models. As this link is responsible for the particle-particle interaction it is analogous to the graviton. Orbital angular momentum of the planetary orbits derives from the sum of the planet-sun particle-particle orbital angular momentum irrespective of the angular momentum of the sun itself and the rotational angular momentum of a planet includes particle-particle rotational angular momentum. (shrink)

The significance and use of absence of a thing is highlighted taking examples from mathematics, physics, semi-conductor electronics, computer science and cognitive science. The profundity of absence is discussed.

Physical systems without time and dynamics have been considered. The principle of how to construct spacetime in a physical system without time and dynamics has been proposed. It has been found what can be objects in such a spacetime, and what can be an interaction between such objects. Within the framework of the considered class of systems, answers to the following problems of philosophy and physics have been found: the nature of consciousness and the connection of body and consciousness (mind-body (...) problem), the nature of time, the anthropic principle and the problem of fine-tuning the universe, the effectiveness of mathematics in describing physical phenomena, the limits of knowledge. There are a number of indications that our Universe is not based on one of the systems of the class considered. The considered class of systems makes it possible to find answers to questions that cannot be answered for our Universe. This shows that it is fundamentally possible to find answers to these questions for our Universe as well. (shrink)

This is a scanned draft of my very early work, not completed due to the loss of the original electronic version. The gravitational constant G has been a subject of interest for more than two centuries. Precise measurements indicate that it is equal to 6.673(10)xl0-11 m^3/kgs^2, with relative standard uncertainty of 1.5x10-3. The need for such constant is discussed. Various systems of units of measure have emerged since Newton, and none of them is both practical, and useful in theoretical research. (...) The relevance of a metric system that only has length and time as base units is analysed, and such system proposed. As a result, much higher clarity of physical quantities is achieved. The gravitational and electric constants can be eliminated to become non-dimensional, which results in elimination of the kilogram of mass and the Coulomb of charge in favour of the same composite unit for both physical quantities being m^3/s^2. The system offers a great advantage to General Relativity where only space-time units can be used. (shrink)

Physical theories are complex and necessary tools for gaining new knowledge about their areas of application. A distinction is made between abstract and practical theories. The last are constantly being improved in the cognitive activity of professional physicists and studied by future physicists. A variant of the philosophy of physics based on a modified structural-nominative reconstruction of practical theories is proposed. Readers should decide whether this option is useful for their understanding of the philosophy of physics, as well as other (...) philosophies of particular sciences. (shrink)

Priest's theory of motion is based on Leibniz's Continuity Condition (LCC), which states that any state that exists at each instant in a continuous set of moments also exists at its temporal limit. If we accept the CCL, a free-falling pen would have to be simultaneously in motion and at rest at the instant of change: the critical moment when it hits the ground, thus passing from the state of motion to that of rest. This seems to be a contradictory (...) state of affairs, which is precisely what Priest claims to be the case. In this article, I discuss the logical possibility of empirically testing whether such a contradictory state of affairs occurs. (shrink)

There is a vast amount of research data accumulating from space exploration on the topics of impacts, symmetries, habitable zone, chemical compositions, atmosphere, climate and geology. The related facts, sayings and relations need to be evaluated by a theory of decision based on strategies of reflection on empirical research and cooperation. More and more suitable technological applications, appropriate inventions and innovations are being introduced for the implementation of the objective to find interstellar habitat. A logic of space science and technology (...) is being, therefore, continuously articulated and innovated through focusing on efficiency, computability, polyvalence, feedback control etc. This effort needs also to be assisted by a reevaluation of conceptual and mathematical frameworks, with the adoption of new physical definitions and new units of measurement. Otherwise, the whole effort remains impeded by its own entitlement. An example of the requirement for conceptual reevaluation is the increasing significance of astrobiology, on account of the quest for water, life and habitable planets. Hereby philosophy of physics meets the philosophy of biology, so far as the concepts of life and non-life could plausibly be reconsidered by space exploration, while ethical problems on the value of space medicine, health and information arise, as well. An example of the urgent requirement for reflection and reevaluation of mathematical frameworks is the task for an efficient motion of spacecraft to the interstellar medium, to Proxima Centauri b and other exoplanets. Such a task should require the adoption of new units of measurement, for instance, of the magnitude of ~6.000 km/s (30 times faster than the Parker Solar Probe), being thus better comparable to the speed of light (since ~6.000 km/s equals to 1/50 or 2% of the speed of light). However, the most significant instant of the challenge to reflection is the role of the magnetosphere, the magnetic fields and dynamos for the development and the motion of the planets of our solar system and exoplanets. A successful procedure to explaining the contribution of the magnetic field to planetary dynamics may help us answer serious scientific questions and probably may crucially contribute to the discovery of a new unified physical theory of everything. -/- . (shrink)

The distinction between dimensions and units in physics is commonplace. But are dimensions a feature of reality? The most widely-held view is that they are no more than a tool for keeping track of the values of quantities under a change of units. This anti-realist position is supported by an argument from underdetermination: one can assign dimensions to quantities in many different ways, all of which are empirically equivalent. In contrast, I defend a form of dimensional realism, on which some (...) assignments of dimensions to quantities better describe reality than others. The argument I provide is a form of inference to the best explanation. In particular, the technique of dimensional analysis is explanatory, but it is only successful for certain systems of dimensions. Since these dimensional systems support scientific explanations, we have reason to believe that they are real. (shrink)

Erik Banks does several things in this slender yet substantial book on realistic empiricism (aka neutral monism). First, he encapsulates the main ideas of this tradition. While he goes into greater depth on some of these ideas than other introductions do, these pages are still accessible to nonspecialists. Second, he traces the the history of this tradition through the Austrian scientist, Ernst Mach, the American psychologist, William James, the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, and others. These four chapters are a valuable (...) source for readers seeking to understand neutral monism in depth. Third, he develops his own version of neutral monism to deal with problems in the philosophies of mind and science. Most of my commentary will pertain to his own theory, which has some similar roots to my own. (shrink)

We present an epistemological schema of natural sciences inspired by Peirce's pragmaticist view, stressing the role of the \emph{phenomenological map}, that connects reality and our ideas about it. The schema has a recognisable mathematical/logical structure which allows to explore some of its consequences. We show that seemingly independent principles as the requirement of reproducibility of experiments and the Principle of Sufficient Reason are both implied by the schema, as well as Popper's concept of falsifiability. We show that the schema has (...) some power in demarcating science by first comparing with an alternative schema advanced during the first part of the 20th century which has its roots in Hertz and has been developed by Einstein and Popper. Further, the identified differences allow us to focus in the construction of Special Relativity, showing that it uses an intuited concept of velocity that does not satisfy the requirements of reality in Peirce. While the main mathematical observation connected with this issue has been known for more than a century, it has not been investigated from an epistemological point of view. A probable reason could be that the socially dominating epistemology in physics does not encourage such line of work. We briefly discuss the relation of the abduction process presented in this work with discussions regarding ``abduction'' in the literature and its relation with ``analogy''. (shrink)

For Humeans, many facts—even ones intuitively “about” particular, localized macroscopic parts of the world—turn out to depend on surprisingly global fundamental bases. We investigate some counterintuitive consequences of this picture. Many counterfactuals whose antecedents describe intuitively localized, non-actual states of affairs nevertheless end up involving wide-ranging implications for the global, embedding Humean mosaic. The case of self-undermining chances is a familiar example of this. We examine that example in detail and argue that popular existing strategies such as “holding the laws (...) fixed as laws” or “holding the laws fixed as true” are of no help. Interestingly, we show how a new proposal that draws on the resources of the Mentaculus can yield the right results—but only on the assumption that the Humean can make cross-world identifications. We go on to argue that the Humean cannot make such identifications. We conclude that the root of this trouble is deeper, and its reach broader, than the familiar cases suggest. We think it is very much an open question whether the Humean has sufficient resources to properly conceptualize macroscopic objects or to analyze these “local” counterfactuals. (shrink)

Ce livre propose une étude détaillée et une défense systématique d’une intuition-clé que nous partageons tous à propos de la nature du temps : celle que le futur est ouvert, tandis que le passé est fixé. Si l’occurrence d’une Troisième Guerre mondiale semble indéterminée, il y a bel et bien eu une Première Guerre mondiale. -/- Dans le présent ouvrage, l’auteur fournit une élucidation cohérente, non métaphorique et métaphysiquement éclairante de l’intuition ; il détermine quel modèle de structure temporelle du (...) monde est le plus approprié pour intégrer l’intuition, et s’attarde sur une version spécifique de la théorie du bloc en croissance (GBT) ; enfin, il offre une base naturaliste à GBT, en exploitant les résultats récents des meilleures théories physiques. Trois défis principaux sont ainsi abordés : la réduction des asymétries temporelles à des phénomènes non fondamentaux (par exemple des phénomènes thermodynamiques ou causaux), l’objection épistémique contre GBT ainsi que la tension apparente entre GBT et la physique relativiste. L’auteur conclut que l’asymétrie entre le futur ouvert et le passé fixé doit être ancrée dans la structure temporelle du monde, et que cela n’est ni exclu par notre dispositif épistémique, ni par certaines approches émergentes de la gravité quantique. (shrink)

It is often argued that the indispensability of continuum models comes from their empirical adequacy despite their decoupling from the microscopic details of the modelled physical system. There is thus a commonly held misconception that temperature varying across a region of space or time can always be accurately represented as a continuous function. We discuss three inter-related cases of temperature modelling — in phase transitions, thermal boundary resistance and slip flows — and show that the continuum view is fallacious on (...) the ground that the microscopic details of a physical system are not necessarily decoupled from continuum models. We show how temperature discontinuities are present in both data (experiments and simulations) and phenomena (theory and models) and how discontinuum models of temperature variation may have greater empirical adequacy and explanatory power. The conclusions of our paper are: a) continuum idealisations are not indispensable to modelling physical phenomena and both continuous and discontinuous representations of phenomena work depending on the context; b) temperature is not necessarily a continuously defined function in our best scientific representations of the world; and c) that its continuity, where applicable, is a contingent matter. We also raise a question as to whether discontinuous representations should be considered truly de-idealised descriptions of physical phenomena. (shrink)

A simple interpretation of quantity calculus is given. Quantities are described as two-place functions from objects, states or processes (or some combination of them) into numbers that satisfy the mutual measurability property. Quantity calculus is based on a notational simplification of the concept of quantity. A key element of the simplification is that we consider units to be intentionally unspecified numbers that are measures of exactly specified objects, states or processes. This interpretation of quantity calculus combines all the advantages of (...) calculating with numerical values (since the values of quantities are numbers, we can do with them everything we do with numbers) and all the advantages of calculating with standardly conceived quantities (calculus is invariant to the choice of units and has built-in dimensional analysis). This also shows that the standard metaphysics and mathematics of quantities and their magnitudes is not needed for quantity calculus. At the end of the article, arguments are given that the concept of quantity as defined here is a pivotal concept in understanding the quantitative approach to nature. As an application of this interpretation of quantity calculus, an easy proof of dimensional homogeneity of physical laws is given. (shrink)

The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Physics is a comprehensive and authoritative guide to the state of the art in the philosophy of physics. It contains 54 self-contained chapters written by leading philosophers of physics at both senior and junior levels, making it the most thorough and detailed volume of its type on the market – nearly every major perspective in the field is represented. The Companion’s 54 chapters are organized into 12 sections. The first seven sections cover all of (...) the major physical theories investigated by philosophers of physics today, and the last five explore key themes that unite the study of these theories. I. Classical Mechanics II. Special Relativity III. General Relativity IV. Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics V. Quantum Field Theory VI. Quantum Gravity VII. Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics VIII. Explanation IX. Intertheoretic Relations X. Symmetries XI. Metaphysics XII. Cosmology. (shrink)

Cele mai multe experimente au confirmat relativitatea generală cu ajutorul tehnologiilor nou dezvoltate. S-a creat o bază tehnologică pentru astronomia undelor gravitaționale. S-au construit antene barogene criogenice și antene interferometrice laser performante, asociate cu analiza teoretică a experimentelor cu masele de testare, rezultând că sensibilitatea experimentelor depinde de izolarea termică, dacă dispozitivul înregistrează continuu coordonatele sensibilitatea antenei este limitată, și se poate crește sensibilitatea dacă se folosesc proceduri cuantice. Antenele pot ajuta în observarea radiației gravitaționale de fond și testarea relativității (...) generale în cazul ultra-nelinar. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34549.63200. (shrink)

The main ideas of the EDWs perspective are in Gabriel Vacariu’s PhD thesis posted online by UNSW (Australia) in 2007!!! I have realized the GREATEST discovery in the history of human knowledge: the EDWs! With discovering the EDWs, I have changed everything in Philosophy, Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience! This has been the main reason, so many people have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas, many years I published my first works! -/- UNBELIEVABLE, many (hundreds) “great” or small thinkers did (...) the same thing in 2006-2007 and later: they published the same ideas, UNBELIEVABLE similar to my ideas from 2002-2005! They believe they would be considered co-authors of the same new framework of thinking. They did not know that many “professors” would do the same thing: they plagiarized my ideas and they hurry up to published their work as soon as possible (in 2006-2007, depending when they discovered my article 2005). So, in the same 2 years, many people “discovered” the same new framework of thinking, the EDWs perspective, each of them did not think that there would be so many other people doing the same thing, that is, many people “discovered” the same new framework (the greatest challenge in the history of human thinking!) in the same period! Such coincidences (the discovery of the EDWs in the same two years!!!) are quite IMPOSSIBLE!! This is the reason nobody quoted my name, but nobody quoted any name who PLAGIARIZED my ideas… In 2006-2007, I was wondering why nobody quote my name, but in fact, they plagiarized my ideas. Nobody discovered this framework of thinking 2500 years, and in 2-3 years, many people discovered it!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!! There were some "professors" who published articles/chapters very close to Bohr's complementarity, Dirac, de Broglie's dualism before 2005 (for instance Carlo Rovelli 1996 or Ladyman), but their works were constructed within the "unicorn world" (Universe/world), therefore, these works had nothing in common with the EDWs perspective!!!! In reality, all of them plagiarized my ideas! It was like many people composed Beethoven Fifth’s Symphony, claiming that they never listen Beethoven! Who would be so stupid to believe them? (shrink)

Non-Humean accounts of the metaphysics of nature posit either laws or powers in order to account for natural necessity and world-order. We argue that such monistic views face fundamental problems. On the one hand, neo-Aristotelians cannot give unproblematic power-based accounts of the functional laws among quantities offered by physical theories, as well as of the place of conservation laws and symmetries in a lawless ontology; in order to capture these characteristics, commitment to governing laws is indispensable. On the other hand, (...) ontologies that entirely exclude some kind of power ascription to worldly entities face what we call the Governing Problem: such ontologies do not have the resources to give an adequate account of how laws play their governing role. We propose a novel dualist model, which, we argue, has the resources to solve the difficulties encountered by its two dominant competitors, without inheriting the problems of either view. According to the dualist model, both laws and powers are equally fundamental and irreducible to each other, and both are needed in order to give a satisfactory account of the nomological structure of the world. The dualist model constitutes thus a promising alternative to current monistic views in the metaphysics of science. (shrink)

This article explores three ways in which physics may involve counterpossible reasoning. The first way arises when evaluating false theories: to say what the world would be like if the theory were true, we need to evaluate counterfactuals with physically impossible antecedents. The second way relates to the role of counterfactuals in characterizing causal structure: to say what causes what in physics, we need to make reference to physically impossible scenarios. The third way is novel: to model metaphysical dependence in (...) physics, we need to consider counterfactual consequences of metaphysical impossibilities. Physics accordingly bears substantial and surprising counterpossible commitments. (shrink)

This is a collection of nineteen essays in the tradition of critical rationalism (as advocated by Karl Popper). All but one of the essays is previously unpublished and the one previously published paper has undergone significant revisions. The first four essays tackle topics in the philosophy of science, the first being an exposition of Popper's views, the others discussing falsifiability, truth, the aim of science, and ceteris-paribus law-statements. Five essays follow concerned with Reason, reasoning and reasons, in which faulty conceptions (...) of theoretical and practical reason are criticised, the nature and uses of argument are discussed, and the rationality of debate, agreement and disagreement are explained. Next, there are two papers on economics, one of which is a substantial critique of the so-called subjective theory of value, the other a brief discussion of entrepreneurial insight. The last section of the book contains a miscellany of eight critical essays in which some errors of contemporary philosophers are exposed regarding issues including the interpretation of Popper’s work, the Gettier problem, no-platforming, open-mindedness, homosexual equality, tolerance, philosophical heuristics and the conduct of debate. (shrink)

Are space and time fundamental features of our world or might they emerge from something else? The Foundation of Reality brings together metaphysicians and philosophers of physics working on space, time, and fundamentality to address this timely question.

The idea of science being the best – or the only – way to reach the truth about our cosmos has been a major belief of modern civilization. Yet, science has grown tall on fragile legs of clay. Every scientific theory uses axioms and assumptions that by definition cannot be proved. This poses a serious limitation to the use of science as a tool to find the truth. The only way to search for the latter is to redefine the former (...) to its original glory. In the days well before Galileo and Newton, science and religion were not separated. They worked together to discover the truth and while the latter had God as its final destination, the former had God as its starting point. Science is based on the irrational (unproven) belief that the world is intelligible along many other assumptions. This poses a serious limitation to science that can only be overcome if we accept the irrationality of the cosmos. The motto “Credo quia absurdum” holds more truth than one can ever realize at first glance. There is nothing logical in logic, whereas there is deep wisdom in the irrational. For while the former tries to build castles on moving sand, the latter digs deep inside the depths of existence itself in order to build on the most concrete foundations that there can be: the cosmos itself. The only way forward is backwards. Backwards to a time when religion led the quest for knowledge by accepting what we cannot know, rather than trying to comprehend what we do not. Science was anyway based on that in the first place. (shrink)

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (MWI) states that the world we live in is just one among many parallel worlds. It is widely believed that because of this commitment to parallel worlds, the MWI violates common sense. Some go so far as to reject the MWI on this basis. This is despite its myriad of advantages to physics (e.g. consistency with relativity theory, mathematical simplicity, realism, determinism, etc.). Here, we make the case that common sense in fact favors (...) the MWI. We argue that causal explanations are commonsensical only when they are local causal explanations. We present several quantum mechanical experiments that seem to exhibit nonlocal “action at a distance”. Under the assumption that only one world exists, these experiments seem immune to local causal explanation. However, we show that the MWI, by taking all worlds together, can provide local causal explanations of the experiments. The MWI therefore restores common sense to physical explanation. (shrink)

Introduction The EDWs perspective, a new general framework of thinking for all physicists! “The present situation in physics is as if we know chess, but we don't know one or two rules.” Richard Feynman In other works (2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016; Vacariu and Vacariu 2010, 2016a, 2016b), we have showed that the greatest illusion of human knowledge is the notion of “world”, of “uni-verse”, or as we called it, the “Unicorn-world”, and this notion has survived from (...) the oldest times until today. In these works, we have indicated that the “world”, the “Universe” does not exist, but the “Epistemologically Different Worlds” (EDWs) exist (more specifically, for many EDWs, it is about the entities and the interactions which really exist and only represent these EDWs). We emphasize that the EDWs perspective is a new Copernican revolution in human thinking, the greatest movement in Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Philosophy! During the past 15 years, we have applied the EDW paradigm to the main particular sciences and main theories in physics (quantum mechanics, Einstein’s special and general relativity, and the relationship between them), cognitive science (to the main theories like computationalism, connectionism, and the dynamical system approach), cognitive neuroscience, and biology (just to the relationship between life and organism/cell). Also, we showed that the entire Philosophy since Ancient period until now is totally wrong (just because, all philosophical approaches have been constructed within the “Unicorn-world”). This book closes the circle of great topics concerning the main particular sciences (physics, cognitive (neuro)science, and biology) and philosophy grasped in all our previous books (2008-2016): it is about the relationship between the main theories and concepts of Physics vs. the EDWs perspective! The main theories that we investigate in this and our previous works have been created within the Unicorn-world, therefore, all these approaches have been quite wrong. Some of these theories have been partially re-write in our previous books (Einstein both relativities, thermodynamics, and our EDWs perspective, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016, 2017, etc.), but even some notions of these theories were wrong. For instance, in our previous book (2016), we indicated that “spacetime” cannot even exist (spacetime cannot have any kind of ontology!). Therefore, in 2017, re-wrote Einstein’s both relativities without “spacetime”. The majority of theories in Physics have been created within the unicorn world and therefore these theories have been quite wrong or at least the authors of these scientific theories have been used wrong concepts. This book is a collections of our previous ideas, but we strongly emphasize that some of these idea are quite developed in this work. Therefore, this book can be labeled as: “a philosopher overwriting Physics within a new paradigm, the ‘Epistemologically Different World’ (EDWs) perspective”! We emphasize that some parts of this book are from our previous works (but even so, these parts are modified, we added new paragraphs or sub-chapters), but some parts are new written. In general, the new details of this book are the results of following Presura’s book about Physics (2014) written in Romanian. His book is a general overview of the main theories in Physics. Presura is a physicist who wrote a book about these theories in a quite easy language for large public (also for philosophers). There are quite many paragraphs from Presura’s book that are quoted in our book. We emphasize that Presura’s paragraphs inserted in our book are our translations. Also, we inserted quite many of his ideas but we mentioned his name each time. We apologize if some notions or ideas are wrong translated. The first Chapter is about the EDWs perspective. In Chapter 2, we introduce more details about the rejection of “spacetime”. In Chapter 3, we insert the ideas from our book Vacariu and Vacariu 2017 about Einstein’s relativity without “spacetime”. However, new paragraphs are introduced in this chapter. In Chapter 4, we are indicating that all alternatives of quantum mechanics have been wrong: parts of this chapter are from our previous works, other parts and paragraphs are new ideas/comments. In Chapter 5, we discuss about the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) and the Theory of Everything (TOE), Big Bang (transformed, according to the EDWs perspective, in many Big Bangs – in this way, we avoid Alan Guth’s empty notion of “inflation” which contradict Einstein’s principle of constant speed of light which cannot be surpassed by anything else). In Chapter 6, we introduce an updated version about the dark matter and the dark energy (in 2016, we published a book about “dark matter/energy, space and time and other pseudo-notions in Cosmology” and in 2020 we published a chapter in a book edited by the physicist Michael Smith - see the bibliography. We mention that, in that book, except our chapter, all the other chapters are written by physicists!). For instance, in section 6.4, we introduce a new alternative to dark energy and dark matter, an alternative that is different even from this updated approach! In Chapter 7, we furnish more details about the non-existence of “hyperspace” and the futility of the “superstring theory”. In Chapter 8 in indicate the clear great distinction between our EDWs and Primas and Atmanspascher’s approach (under Spinoza’s “dual aspects” approach and Bohr’s “complementarity” constructed within the unicorn world). In the last chapter, chapter 9, we analysis Rovelli’s rejection of “spacetime” (based on Einstein’s general relativity) within the unicorn world. We rejected the ontology of “spacetime”, but our argument is totally different than Rovelli’s argument. Moreover, we indicate that Rovelli’s argument is quite wrong, constructed within the unicorn world. As a conclusion, we emphasize that we have overwritten the main theories, ideas and concepts of Physics within the new Copernican framework of thinking, the EDWs perspective. The umbrella under which we have been working indicates that the great problems of Physics are pseudo-problems constructed within the wrong framework, the “Unicorn world” (the Universe/world) which does not really exist. Therefore, we have to replace the unicorn world with the EDWs! At the end of our Introduction, we mention that that have been many physicists, cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers who have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to our ideas long time after our ideas being published!).[ Discovering the EDWs, Gabriel Vacariu HAS CHANGED EVERYTHING in human knowledge! His EDWs is the greatest CHALLENGE in the history of human thinking. Many people have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to our ideas long time after we published and posted our first works on Internet. About the UNBELIEVABLE SIMILARITIES here: academia researchgate philpapers All our main ideas (the mind-brain problem, main problems of cognitive science and quantum mechanics, Einstein’s relativity vs. quantum mechanics, etc.) from my Springer’s book (2016) can be found in my PhD thesis (2007), UNSW (Sydney, Australia, posted on university’s website, free, by the university’s team in 2007) unsworks.unsw.... Nobody discovered the EDWs during 2500 years, Gabriel Vacariu discovered them in 2002 (first publication), 2003 and 2005. Amazing, in the last years, many people also “discovered” the existence of EDWs! Statistically, it is quite impossible, so many people (hundreds!) to “discover” the EDWs! (Don’t forget, we have been working within the Internet’s world, therefore, communication is much faster than 20 years ago...) “I don't care that they stole my idea. I care that they don't have any of their own… The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine.” (Nikolai Tesla) What these authors have been missing comparing with Gabriel Vacariu? They have been either physicists or cognitive neuroscientists or philosophers while Gabriel Vacariu is a philosopher working Cognitive Neuroscience and Physics! This is the main reason they have been unable to discover the EDWs and to think and write the “Metaphysics of EDWs” (our book 2019)!] It is not something surprising since the EDWs has changed everything in human knowledge! Therefore, we end this chapter with this paragraph: “The distance between the pioneers and the much smaller followers becomes so great that the latter cannot reach the former; the age of servile imitation begins – yet not of nature, but of the style of the great masters, zealous copyists remove the labels from the elixirs of the Magi and put them on their vials.” (Arnold Gehlen, Images of time). (shrink)

I argue that the best interpretation of the general theory of relativity has need of a causal entity, and causal structure that is not reducible to light cone structure. I suggest that this causal interpretation of GTR helps defeat a key premise in one of the most popular arguments for causal reductionism, viz., the argument from physics.

GianCarlo Ghirardi passed away on June 1st, 201. He would have turned 83 on October 28, 2018. He was without any doubt one of the most prominent theoretical physicists working on the foundation and the philosophy of quantum mechanics. In this paper I review some of his achievements and underline how his research influenced the philosophy of physics community.

This volume offers a broad, philosophical discussion on mechanical explanations. Coverage ranges from historical approaches and general questions to physics and higher-level sciences . The contributors also consider the topics of complexity, emergence, and reduction. Mechanistic explanations detail how certain properties of a whole stem from the causal activities of its parts. This kind of explanation is in particular employed in explanatory models of the behavior of complex systems. Often used in biology and neuroscience, mechanistic explanation models have been often (...) overlooked in the philosophy of physics. The authors correct this surprising neglect. They trace these models back to their origins in physics. The papers present a comprehensive historical, methodological, and problem-oriented investigation. The contributors also investigate the conditions for using models of mechanistic explanations in physics. The last papers make the bridge from physics to economics, the theory of complex systems and computer science . This book will appeal to graduate students and researchers with an interest in the philosophy of science, scientific explanation, complex systems, models of explanation in physics higher level sciences, and causal mechanisms in science. (shrink)

An abstract in English is included in the download. Wolfgang Pauli war einer der Grossen unter den Physikern des 20. Jahrhunderts, nicht ganz so berühmt wie Heisenberg und Einstein, aber annähernd ebenso bedeutend. Er war es, der bei der Entwicklung der Quantenphysik das sogenannte Ausschließungsprinzip entdeckte und damit den Weg zu unserem physikalischen Grundverständnis der ganzen Chemie eröffnete. Seine Gedanken galten aber auch hintergründigen wissenschaftsphilosophischen Fragen, und die gängigen Auffassungen über die Rolle von Vernunft und Materialismus in der Naturwissenschaft waren (...) ihm zu eng. Er betonte vielmehr, dass wissenschaftliches Verständnis immer wesentlich auch psychisch ist, dass das erlebte Glücksgefühl, welches mit einer Entdeckung verbunden ist, entscheidendes Motiv ist, dass dabei Ordnungen der Natur mit Urbildern unserer Psyche verknüpft werden, und dass eine sinnvolle Weltsicht zwar auch, aber nicht nur durch abendländisches Vernunftdenken zustande kommen kann; er strebte nach einer Verbindung mit einem gefühlten Einheitsdenken in der Tradition der östlichen asiatischen Kulturen. Abschliessend betont der Artikel, wie vielseitig überhaupt die Gedanken der Begründer der modernen Physik im 20. Jahrhundert in Bezug auf Grundfragen des religiösen Denkens waren. (shrink)

Diese Schrift enthält eine Reihe von sieben Artikeln, in der es um die Beziehung der Wissenschaften zu aufgeklärten, liberalen Formen religiöser Vorstellungen geht. Im Gegensatz zu verbreiteten Ansichten zumal des vorigen Jahrhunderts führt die moderne Naturwissenschaft zu einer zwar weitgehenden, aber prinzipiell nicht vollständigen Erklärung der Wirklichkeit. Sie kann die Rätselhaftigkeit der Welt für uns Menschen nicht aufheben; die Grundfähigkeiten des menschlichen Denkens sind schließlich nicht nur Gegenstand der Wissenschaft, sondern auch Voraussetzungen jeder wissenschaftlichen Tätigkeit. Auf der „meta-theoretischen“, nämlich der (...) philosophischen, kulturellen und religiösen Ebene bleibt die Welt mehrdeutig; wir dürfen und können wählen. Nach meiner Ansicht sprechen dabei Weisheit und Lebenskunst für eine pro-religiöse Einstellung; verbindlich kann und soll sie aber nicht sein. Die Artikel folgen dieser Gedankenspur. Sie sind voneinander unabhängig entstanden, sollen auch unabhängig lesbar sein und sind dazu als Volltext einbezogen. Etwas an Wiederholungen in der Reihe ist so nicht zu vermeiden, und dafür bitte ich um Nachsicht. Am Beginn steht eine kurze Antwort des Autors zur Frage „Was ist der Mensch?“, welche die Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften etwa achtzig Personen gestellt hat. Es folgt ein Artikel zur biologischen Entstehung der höheren geistigen Fähigkeiten unserer Spezies „Mensch“, insbesondere der kognitionsgestützten Empathie. Zentraler Aspekt ist in den weiteren Überlegungen das menschliche Bewusstsein; es gibt prinzipielle, erkenntnistheoretisch robuste Gründe gegen die Möglichkeit einer vollständigen naturwissenschaftlichen Erklärung. Schon der geniale mittelalterliche Theologe Meister Eckhart hat den Urgrund des menschlichen Bewusstseins als göttlich angesehen. Unter den modernen Naturwissenschaftlern gehe ich exemplarisch auf Wolfgang Pauli ein, der neben Physik und Logik besonders die psychischen Voraussetzungen wissenschaftlicher Entdeckungen betont. Im Bezug auf Religion zeigte er Sympathie für östliche Gedankenwelten, liebte Schopenhauer, der den Buddhismus für westliche Denker wieder entdeckt hatte. Sodann erkläre ich meine Gründe für pro-religiösen „metaphysischen Optimismus“ – das göttliche Heil ist für Alle da - und das nicht nur im Kontext des Christentums. Nach diesem mehr persönlichen Artikel (ohne Zitate!) schließe ich mit einer systematischen Analyse von Aspekten moderner Biologie, die verschiedene, sowohl agnostische wie auch pro-religiöse Deutungen ermöglichen, und argumentiere für Offenheit der Erörterung. -/- The basic issue of this book on “Science, the enigma of consciousness, and pro-religious ideas” is the relation of modern science that encompasses, among its topics, its own intrinsic limitations, to enlightened, liberal versions of religion. The relation allows for more than one logically consistent interpretation on the “metatheoretical“, that is on the philosophical and cultural level. This includes religious as well as agnostic views. Choices and preferences are mainly a matter of wisdom and art of living, and not just of knowledge, and this may lead us towards a pro-religious option. -/- . (shrink)

Over 40 years ago, I put forward a new philosophy of science based on the argument that physics, in only ever accepting unified theories, thereby makes a substantial metaphysical presupposition about the universe, to the effect it possesses an underlying unity. I argued that a new conception of scientific method is required to subject this problematic presupposition to critical attention so that it may be improved as science proceeds. This view has implications for the study of the metaphysics of science. (...) The view has however been ignored by recent contributions to the field. I indicate broader implications of the view, and consider reasons why the view has been neglected. (shrink)

This brief review of Mario Bunge’s research on physics begins with an analysis of his masterpiece Foundations of Physics, and then it discusses his other contributions to the philosophy of physics. Following that is a summary of his more recent reactions to scientific discoveries in physics and a discussion of his position about non-locality in quantum mechanics, as well as his changing opinions on the nature of spacetime. The paper ends with a brief assessment of Bunge’s legacy concerning the foundations (...) of physics. (shrink)

I have read many recent discussions of the limits of computation and the universe as computer, hoping to find some comments on the amazing work of polymath physicist and decision theorist David Wolpert but have not found a single citation and so I present this very brief summary. Wolpert proved some stunning impossibility or incompleteness theorems (1992 to 2008-see arxiv dot org) on the limits to inference (computation) that are so general they are independent of the device doing the computation, (...) and even independent of the laws of physics, so they apply across computers, physics, and human behavior. They make use of Cantor's diagonalization, the liar paradox and worldlines to provide what may be the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory, and seemingly provide insights into impossibility, incompleteness, the limits of computation, and the universe as computer, in all possible universes and all beings or mechanisms, generating, among other things, a non- quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and a proof of monotheism. There are obvious connections to the classic work of Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov and Wittgenstein and to the notion that no program (and thus no device) can generate a sequence (or device) with greater complexity than it possesses. One might say this body of work implies atheism since there cannot be any entity more complex than the physical universe and from the Wittgensteinian viewpoint, ‘more complex’ is meaningless (has no conditions of satisfaction, i.e., truth-maker or test). Even a ‘God’ (i.e., a ‘device’with limitless time/space and energy) cannot determine whether a given ‘number’ is ‘random’, nor find a certain way to show that a given ‘formula’, ‘theorem’ or ‘sentence’ or ‘device’ (all these being complex language games) is part of a particular ‘system’. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 2nd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

I explore how the nature, scope, and limits of the knowledge obtained in orbital dynamics has changed in recent years. Innovations in the design of spacecraft trajectories, as well as in astronomy, have led to new logics of theory-testing—that is, new research methodologies—in orbital dynamics. These methodologies—which combine resonance overlap theories, numerical experiments, and the implementation of space missions—were developed in response to the discovery of chaotic dynamical systems in our solar system. In the past few decades, they have replaced (...) the methodology that dominated orbital research in the centuries following Newton's Principia. As a result, the kind of knowledge achieved by orbital research has changed: we can know how orbiting bodies in chaotic systems behave, but only over sufficiently short time scales; and we can reliably measure those temporal limitations, using Lyapunov time. (shrink)

We argue that two powerful error-theoretic concepts provide a general framework that satisfactorily accounts for key aspects of the explanation of physical patterns. This method gives an objective criterion to determine which mathematical models in a class of neighboring models are just as good as the exact one. The method also emphasizes that abstraction is essential for explanation and provides a precise conceptual framework that determines whether a given abstraction is explanatorily relevant and justified. Hence, it increases our epistemological understanding (...) of how one should go about reconstructing scientific practices by making clear that, at a fundamental level, a key aspect of mathematical modeling consists in exactly solving nearby problems. (shrink)

A ‘duality’ is a formal mapping between the spaces of solutions of two empirically equivalent theories. In recent times, dualities have been found to be pervasive in string theory and quantum field theory. Naïvely interpreted, duality-related theories appear to make very different ontological claims about the world—differing in e.g. space-time structure, fundamental ontology, and mereological structure. In light of this, duality-related theories raise questions familiar from discussions of underdetermination in the philosophy of science: in the presence of dual theories, what (...) is one to say about the ontology of the world? In this paper, we undertake a comprehensive and non-technical survey of the landscape of possible ontological interpretations of duality-related theories. We provide a significantly enriched and clarified taxonomy of options—several of which are novel to the literature. (shrink)

Modern science began as natural philosophy, an admixture of philosophy and science. It was then killed off by Newton, as a result of his claim to have derived his law of gravitation from the phenomena by induction. But this post-Newtonian conception of science, which holds that theories are accepted on the basis of evidence, is untenable, as the long-standing insolubility of the problem of induction indicates. Persistent acceptance of unified theories only in physics, when endless equally empirically successful disunified rivals (...) are available, means that physics makes a persistent, problematic metaphysical assumption about the universe: that all disunified theories are false. This assumption, precisely because it is problematic, needs to be explicitly articulated within physics, so that it can be critically assessed and, we may hope, improved. The outcome is a new conception of science—aim-oriented empiricism—that puts science and philosophy together again, and amounts to a modern version of natural philosophy. Furthermore, aim-oriented empiricism leads to the solution to the problem of induction. Natural philosophy pursued within the methodological framework of aim-oriented empiricism is shown to meet standards of intellectual rigour that science without metaphysics cannot meet. (shrink)

Many realists argue that present scientific theories will not follow the fate of past scientific theories because the former are more successful than the latter. Critics object that realists need to show that present theories have reached the level of success that warrants their truth. I reply that the special theory of relativity has been repeatedly reinforced by unconceived scientific methods, so it will be reinforced by infinitely many unconceived scientific methods. This argument for the special theory of relativity overcomes (...) the critics’ objection, and has advantages over the no-miracle argument and the selective induction for it. (shrink)

Previzualizare carte -/- Cartea explorează principalele teme și teorii ale științei și filozofiei contemporane a științei, evidențiind întrebările fascinante și provocatoare actuale din știință în generală și filosofia științei, cu accent pe metodele științifice. O mare parte din înțelegerea noastră provine din cercetarea fundamentală bazată pe curiozitate. Acest lucru duce la opțiuni pentru progres tehnologic care nu au fost planificate sau, uneori, nici măcar imaginate. Investigaţia ştiinţifică este cea care corespunde metodei ştiinţifice, un proces al cărui scop este evaluarea cunoştinţelor (...) empirice. În sens mai larg, cuvântul ştiinţă deseori descrie orice domeniu de studiu sistematic sau cunoştinţele căpătate în urma acestui studiu. Filosofia științei caută o înțelegere profundă a ceea ce înseamnă această metodologie care stă la baza cercetării, și dacă cunoașterea obținută este sau nu reală. Subiectele abordate includ informații generale despre știință (comunitatea științifică, practica științifică, cunoașterea științifică, fenomene științifice), istoria științei (istoria fizicii în particular, filosofia naturală, revoluția științifică), clasificări științifice (taxonomii, clasificarea în matematică, fizică și biologie), cercetarea științifică (instrumente științifice, argumente, literatura științifică, etica în cercetare), teorii științifice (legi științifice), filosofia științei (școli de gândire, limitările cognitive, filosofia fizicii, filosofia spațiului și timpului, filosofia tehnologiei, filosofia inteligenței artificiale), metode științifice acceptate în filosofia științei (modelarea științifică, raţionamentul inductiv, predicţii, problema demarcației, falsificabilitatea, pseudoștiința). -/- CUPRINS: -/- 1. Știința - - - Ce este ştiinţa? - - - Metode științifice - - - - - - Matematica și științele formale - - - Comunitatea științifică - - - - - - Ramuri și domenii - - - - - - Instituţii - - - - - - Literatura - - - Practica științifică - - - - - - Cercetarea fundamentală și aplicată - - - - - - Cercetarea în practică - - - - - - Impactul practic al cercetării științifice - - - - - - Femeile în știință - - - - - - Politica științei - - - - - - Perspectivele media - - - - - - Utilizarea politică - - - - - - Știința și publicul - - - Filosofia ştiinţei - - - - - - Certitudine și știință - - - - - - Pseudoştiinţă, știință marginală, și știință falsă - - - Clasificarea ştiinţelor - - - Cunoașterea științifică - - - - - - Definirea cunoaşterii în filosofie - - - - - - Comunicarea cunoașterii - - - - - - Cunoașterea situată - - - - - - Cunoașterea parțială - - - - - - Cunoașterea științifică - - - - - - Semnificația religioasă a cunoașterii - - - - - - - - - Ca o măsură de religiozității (în sociologia religiei) - - - Fenomene științifice - - - - - - Folosirea filosofică modernă - - - - - - Științific - - - - - - Mecanic - - - - - - Grup și social - - - Știința și tehnologia - - - - - - Știință, inginerie și tehnologie - - - Știința și arta - - - Știința și religia - - - - - - Perspective - - - - - - Perspective ale comunității științifice - - - Critici ale științei - - - - - - Critici filosofice - - - - - - - - - Epistemologia - - - - - - - - - Prejudecăți cognitive și de publicare în cadrul științei - - - - - - - - - Reproductibilitatea - - - - - - - - - Etica 2. Istoria științei - - - Culturile timpurii - - - - - - Africa - - - - - - Orientul Apropiat timpuriu - - - - - - Antichitatea greco-romană - - - - - - India - - - - - - China - - - În Evul Mediu - - - - - - Imperiul Bizantin - - - - - - Lumea islamică - - - - - - Europa de Vest - - - Impactul științei în Europa - - - - - - Epoca iluminării - - - - - - Romantismul în știință - - - Istoria fizicii - - - - - - Fizica în antichitate - - - - - - Fizica în Evul Mediu - - - - - - Fizica în sec. XVI-VIII - - - - - - Fizica în sec. XIX - - - - - - Fizica în sec. XX - - - - - - Știința modernă - - - - - - - - - Stiințele naturii - - - - - - - - - - - - Fizică - - - - - - - - - - - - Chimie - - - - - - - - - - - - Geologie - - - - - - - - - - - - Astronomie - - - - - - - - - - - - Biologie și medicină - - - - - - - - - - - - Ecologie - - - - - - - - - Stiințele sociale - - - - - - - - - - - - Politologia - - - - - - - - - - - - Lingvistica - - - - - - - - - - - - Economia - - - - - - - - - - - - Psihologia - - - - - - - - - - - - Sociologia - - - - - - - - - - - - Antropologia - - - - - - - - - Discipline emergente - - - - - - Disciplină academică - - - - - - - - - Teorii și sociologia istoriei științei - - - - - - - - - Situația multor inovatori științifici - - - Filosofia naturală - - - - - - Originea și evoluția termenului - - - - - - Domeniul de aplicare al filosofiei naturale - - - - - - Ramurile și conținutul filosofiei naturale - - - Revoluția științifică - - - - - - Introducere - - - - - - - - - Semnificaţie - - - - - - Metoda științifică - - - - - - - - - Empirism - - - - - - - - - Știința baconiană - - - - - - - - - Experimentarea științifică - - - - - - - - - Matematizarea - - - - - - - - - Filosofia mecanică - - - - - - - - - Instituţionalizarea - - - - - - Noi idei - - - - - - - - - Astronomie - - - - - - - - - - - - Heliocentrism - - - - - - - - - - - - Gravitația 3. Clasificări științifice - - - Discipline ştiinţifice - - - - - - Ştiințele naturii - - - - - - - - - Ştiinţele fizice - - - - - - - - - - - - Fizica - - - - - - - - - - - - Chimia - - - - - - - - - - - - Ştiinţa Pământului - - - - - - - - - - - - Ecologie - - - - - - - - - - - - Oceanografie - - - - - - - - - - - - Geologie - - - - - - - - - - - - Meteorologie - - - - - - - - - - - - Știința spațială sau astronomia - - - - - - - - - Știința vieții - - - - - - - - - - - - Biologie - - - - - - - - - - - - Zoologie - - - - - - - - - - - - Biologie umana - - - - - - - - - - - - Botanică - - - - - - Stiintele sociale - - - - - - Științele formale - - - - - - - - - Teoria deciziei - - - - - - - - - Logica - - - - - - - - - Matematica - - - - - - - - - Statistica - - - - - - - - - Teoria sistemelor - - - - - - - - - Informatica teoretică - - - - - - Stiința aplicată - - - Taxonomii - - - - - - Aplicații - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - Utilizarea taxonomiilor în diverse discipline - - - - - - - - - Taxonomii în ingineria software - - - - - - - - - - - - Taxonomiile de testare software - - - - - - - - - Taxonomii în publicarea cercetărilor - - - - - - Relațiile este-un și are-un - - - Matematica - - - Fizica - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - - - - Astronomia antică - - - - - - - - - Filosofia naturală - - - - - - - - - Fizica în lumea islamică medievală - - - - - - - - - Fizica clasică - - - - - - - - - Fizica modernă - - - - - - Fizica și filosofia - - - - - - Teorii de bază în fizică - - - - - - - - - Fizica clasică - - - - - - - - - Fizica modernă - - - - - - - - - Diferența între fizica clasică și fizica modernă - - - - - - Cercetarea în fizică - - - - - - - - - Metode științifice - - - - - - - - - Teorie și experiment - - - - - - Domenii de aplicare și obiective - - - - - - - - - Domenii de cercetare - - - - - - - - - Direcții de dezvoltare - - - - - - - - - Direcții actuale de cercetare - - - - - - Ramuri ale fizicii - - - - - - - - - Mecanica clasică - - - - - - - - - Termodinamica si mecanica statistică - - - - - - - - - Electromagnetismul - - - - - - - - - Relativitatea - - - - - - - - - Mecanica cuantică - - - - - - - - - Domenii interdisciplinare - - - Clasificarea biologică - - - - - - Definiție - - - - - - Tipuri biologice - - - - - - Clasări taxonomice - - - Evoluția - - - - - - Mecanisme - - - - - - - - - Selecția naturală - - - - - - - - - Mutația favorizantă - - - - - - - - - Deriva genetică - - - - - - - - - Auto-stopul genetic - - - - - - - - - Fluxul de gene - - - Cosmologia - - - - - - Discipline - - - - - - - - - Cosmologie fizică - - - - - - - - - Cosmologia religioasă sau mitologică - - - - - - - - - Cosmologia filosofică 4. Cercetarea - - - Definiții - - - Forme de cercetare - - - Cercetarea științifică - - - Metoda istorică - - - Pași în cercetare - - - Metode de cercetare - - - - - - Controverse privind metoda de cercetare - - - Etica cercetării - - - Probleme în cercetare - - - - - - Metode de cercetare - - - - - - Lingvism - - - - - - Publicarea recenziilor - - - - - - Influența mișcării de acces deschis - - - - - - Perspective viitoare - - - Instrumente științifice - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - Domeniu - - - - - - Era digitală - - - Investigații - - - - - - Surse clasice - - - - - - - - - Deducția - - - - - - - - - Inducţia - - - - - - - - - Abducția - - - - - - Investigaţii criminale - - - Declarații - - - - - - Declarația ca o entitate abstractă - - - Argumente - - - - - - Formal și informal - - - - - - Tipuri standard - - - - - - - - - Argumente deductive - - - - - - - - - Argumente inductive - - - Extragerea cunoașterii - - - - - - Privire de ansamblu - - - - - - Exemple - - - - - - - - - Legarea entităților - - - - - - - - - Baze de date relaționale RDF - - - - - - Extragerea din surse structurate în RDF - - - - - - - - - 1:1 Maparea din tabele/vizionări RDB în entități/atribute/valori RDF - - - - - - - - - Mapări complexe ale bazelor de date relaționale RDF - - - - - - - - - XML - - - - - - - - - Metode/Instrumente - - - - - - Extracția din surse naturale de limbaj - - - - - - - - - Extracție de informații (EI) tradițională - - - - - - - - - Extracția de informații bazată pe ontologie (EIBO) - - - - - - - - - Învățarea ontologiei - - - - - - - - - Adnotare semantică - - - - - - - - - Instrumente - - - - - - Descoperirea de cunoștințe - - - Literatura științifică - - - - - - Tipuri de publicații științifice - - - - - - Articole științifice - - - - - - - - - Preparare - - - - - - - - - Comunicarea clară și factorul de impact - - - - - - - - - Structura și stilul - - - - - - Evaluarea colegilor - - - - - - Etica - - - Etica în cercetare - - - - - - Coduri și politici pentru etica cercetării 5. Teorii științifice - - - Teorii - - - Teorii științifice - - - - - - Caracteristici - - - - - - - - - Criterii esențiale - - - - - - - - - Alte criterii - - - - - - - - - Definiții ale organizațiilor științifice - - - - - - Structura teoriilor științifice - - - - - - Formarea - - - - - - Revizuirea și îmbunătățirea - - - - - - - - - Unificarea - - - - - - - - - Exemplu: Relativitatea - - - - - - Teorii și legi - - - - - - Despre teorii - - - - - - - - - Teoriile ca axiome - - - - - - - - - Teoriile ca modele - - - - - - - - - - - - Diferențele dintre teorie și model - - - - - - - - - Presupuneri în formularea teoriilor - - - - - - Descrieri - - - - - - - - - Karl Popper - - - - - - - - - Analogii și metafore - - - - - - În fizică - - - Legi științifice 6. Filosofia științei - - - Introducere - - - - - - Definirea științei - - - - - - Explicația științifică - - - - - - Justificarea științei - - - - - - Observație inseparabilă de teorie - - - - - - Scopul științei - - - - - - Valori și știință - - - Istoria - - - - - - Pre-modernă - - - - - - Modernă - - - - - - Pozitivismul logic - - - - - - Thomas Kuhn - - - Abordări curente - - - - - - Ipoteze axiomatice - - - - - - Coerentism - - - - - - Orice e bun - - - - - - Sociologia cunoașterii științifice - - - - - - Filosofia continentală - - - Alte subiecte - - - - - - Reductionism - - - - - - Responsabilitatea socială - - - Filosofia științelor particulare - - - - - - Filosofia statisticii - - - - - - Filosofia matematicii - - - - - - Filosofia fizicii - - - - - - Filosofia chimiei - - - - - - Filosofia științei Pământului - - - - - - Filosofia biologiei - - - - - - Filosofia medicinei - - - - - - Filosofia psihologiei - - - - - - Filosofia psihiatriei - - - - - - Filosofia economiei - - - - - - Filosofia științelor sociale - - - Școli de gândire în filosofia științei - - - - - - Certitudine și știință - - - - - - Pseudoştiinţă, știință marginală, și știință falsă - - - Limitările cognitive filosofice - - - - - - Colin McGinn - - - - - - Friedrich Hayek - - - - - - John Tyndall - - - - - - Noam Chomsky - - - - - - Fenomene și obiecte și evenimente care nu se pot simți (numene) - - - - - - Noi misterieni - - - Filosofia fizicii - - - - - - Filosofia spațiului și timpului - - - - - - - - - Timp - - - - - - - - - Călătoria în timp - - - - - - - - - Spaţiu - - - - - - Filosofia mecanicii cuantice - - - - - - - - - Interpretarea Everett - - - - - - - - - Principiul incertitudinii - - - Filosofia inteligenței artificiale - - - - - - Poate o mașină să aibă o inteligență generală? - - - - - - - - - Inteligența - - - - - - - - - - - - Testul Turing - - - - - - - - - - - - Definirea agentului inteligent - - - - - - - - - Argumente că o mașină poate avea inteligență generală - - - - - - - - - - - - Creierul poate fi simulat - - - - - - - - - - - - Gândirea umană este procesarea simbolurilor - - - - - - - - - - - - Argumente împotriva procesării simbolurilor - - - - - - - - - - - - Argumente anti-mecanistice gödeliene - - - - - - - - - - - - Dreyfus: primatul abilităților inconștiente - - - - - - Poate o mașină să aibă minte, conștiință și stări mentale? - - - - - - - - - Conștiință, minte, stări mentale, înțeles - - - - - - - - - Argumente că un computer nu poate avea minte și stări mentale - - - - - - - - - - - - Camera chineză a lui Searle - - - - - - - - - - - - Argumente înrudite: moara lui Leibniz, schimbul de telefon a lui Davis, națiunea chineză a lui Block și Blockhead - - - - - - - - - - - - Răspunsuri la camera chineză - - - Filosofia spațiului și timpului - - - - - - Abordări antice și medievale - - - - - - Realism și anti-realism - - - - - - Absolutism și relaționalism - - - - - - - - - Leibniz și Newton - - - - - - - - - Mach - - - - - - - - - Einstein - - - - - - Convenţionalism - - - - - - Structura spațiu-timpului - - - - - - - - - Relativitatea simultaneității - - - - - - - - - Invarianță vs. covarianță - - - - - - - - - Cadre istorice - - - - - - - - - Găuri - - - - - - Direcția timpului - - - - - - - - - Soluție de cauzalitate - - - - - - - - - Soluție termodinamică - - - - - - - - - Soluții legice - - - - - - Flux temporal - - - - - - Dualități - - - - - - Presentismul și eternismul - - - - - - Endurantismul și perdurantismul - - - Filosofia tehnologiei - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - - - - Filosofia greacă - - - - - - - - - Secolul al 19-lea - - - - - - - - - Secolul 20 - - - - - - - - - Filosofia contemporană - - - - - - - - - Tehnologie și neutralitate - - - Emergența - - - - - - În filosofie - - - - - - - - - Definiții 7. Metode științifice - - - Istorie - - - Prezentare generală - - - - - - Procesul - - - - - - - - - Formularea unei întrebări - - - - - - - - - Ipoteza - - - - - - - - - Predicția - - - - - - - - - Testarea - - - - - - - - - Analiza - - - - - - Exemplu ADN-ului - - - - - - Alte componente - - - - - - - - - Replicarea - - - - - - - - - Examinarea externă - - - - - - - - - Înregistrarea și partajarea datelor - - - Investigații științifice - - - - - - Proprietățile cercetării științifice - - - - - - Credințe și prejudecăți - - - Elementele metodelor ştiinţifice idealizate - - - Elemente ale metodei științifice - - - - - - Caracterizări - - - - - - Incertitudine - - - - - - Definire - - - - - - Caracterizări ale ADN - - - - - - Un alt exemplu: precesiunea lui Mercur - - - - - - Dezvoltarea ipotezelor - - - - - - - - - Ipoteza ADN - - - - - - Predicții din ipoteze - - - - - - - - - Predicții ADN - - - - - - - - - Un alt exemplu: relativitatea generală - - - - - - Experimente - - - - - - - - - Experimente ADN - - - - - - Evaluare și îmbunătățire - - - - - - - - - Iterații ADN - - - - - - Confirmarea - - - Modele de cercetare științifică - - - - - - Modelul clasic - - - - - - Modelul ipotetico-deductiv - - - - - - Modelul pragmatic - - - Știința sistemelor complexe - - - Comunicarea și comunitatea - - - - - - Evaluarea colegială (inter pares) - - - - - - Documentarea și replicarea - - - - - - Arhivarea - - - - - - Partajarea datelor - - - - - - Limitări - - - - - - Dimensiunile practicii - - - Filosofia și sociologia științei - - - - - - Rolul hazardului în descoperire - - - Relația cu matematica - - - - - - Relația cu statistica - - - - - - Logica argumentării științifice - - - Aspecte ale metodelor ştiinţifice - - - - - - Observaţia - - - - - - Ipoteza - - - - - - Predicţia - - - - - - Verificarea - - - - - - Evaluarea - - - - - - Alte aspecte ale metodelor ştiinţifice - - - Modelarea științifică - - - - - - Prezentare generală - - - - - - Elementele fundamentale ale modelării științifice - - - - - - - - - Modelarea ca înlocuitor pentru măsurarea și experimentarea directă - - - - - - - - - Simularea - - - - - - - - - Structura - - - - - - - - - Sisteme - - - - - - - - - Generarea unui model - - - - - - - - - Evaluarea unui model - - - - - - - - - Vizualizarea - - - Raţionamentul inductiv - - - - - - Raționamentul inductiv vs. raționamentul deductiv - - - - - - Critici - - - - - - - - - Prejudecăţi - - - - - - Tipuri de raționament inductiv - - - - - - - - - Generalizare - - - - - - - - - Silogismul statistic - - - - - - - - - Inducția simplă - - - - - - - - - Argumentul din analogie - - - - - - - - - Inferența cauzală - - - - - - - - - Predicția - - - - - - Inferența bayesiană - - - - - - Inferența inductivă - - - Măsurători - - - - - - Analiza dimensională - - - Referinţe - - - - - - Etimologie și semnificații - - - - - - Semantică - - - - - - - - - Sens - - - - - - - - - Referent absent - - - - - - - - - Semnul lingvistic - - - - - - Informatică - - - - - - Biblioteci și știința informației - - - - - - Psihologie - - - - - - Școala - - - - - - Lege - - - - - - Artă - - - Date - - - - - - Date, informații, cunoaștere și înțelepciune - - - - - - În alte domenii - - - Baze de date guvernamentale - - - - - - Uniunea Europeană - - - Metadate - - - - - - Definiție - - - Statistici - - - - - - Domeniu - - - - - - - - - Statistica matematică - - - - - - - - - Prezentare generală - - - Predicţii - - - - - - Predicţii informale pe bază de ipoteze - - - - - - Sondaje de opinie - - - - - - Statistici - - - - - - Supranaturalul (profeţii) - - - - - - Predicţia în ştiinţă - - - - - - Finanţe - - - Problema demarcației - - - - - - Știința greacă antică - - - - - - Pozitivismul logic - - - - - - Falsificabilitatea - - - - - - Postpozitivismul - - - - - - Feyerabend și Lakatos - - - - - - Thagard - - - - - - Unele perspective ale istoricilor - - - - - - Laudan - - - - - - Semnificaţie - - - Falsificabilitatea - - - - - - Prezentare generală - - - - - - Falsificarea naivă - - - - - - - - - Două tipuri de declarații: observaționale și categorice - - - - - - - - - Inferența categorică inductivă - - - - - - - - - - - - Falsificarea deductivă - - - - - - Falsificaționism - - - - - - Criteriul de demarcare - - - - - - - - - Verificaționism - - - - - - - - - Utilizarea în instanțe judecătorești - - - - - - Critici - - - - - - - - - Filosofi contemporani - - - - - - - - - Kuhn și Lakatos - - - - - - - - - Feyerabend - - - - - - - - - Sokal și Bricmont - - - - - - - - - Economie - - - - - - - - - Evoluţie - - - - - - - - - Creaționismul biblic - - - - - - - - - Istoricism - - - - - - - - - Matematică - - - - - - Citate - - - Științe marginale - - - - - - Descriere - - - - - - Exemple - - - - - - - - - Istoric - - - - - - - - - Teorii contemporane - - - - - - - - - Științe marginale acceptate ulterior ca științele prncipale - - - - - - Opinii - - - - - - - - - Controverse - - - Pseudoștiința - - - - - - Ştiinţa şi pseudoştiinţa - - - - - - - - - Metodologie ştiinţifică - - - - - - - - - Falsificabilitatea - - - - - - - - - Normele Merton - - - - - - - - - Refuzul de a recunoaşte problemele - - - - - - - - - Critica termenului - - - - - - Identificarea pseudoştiinţei - - - - - - - - - Concepte - - - - - - - - - Utilizarea unor revendicări vagi, exagerate sau netestabile - - - - - - - - - Supra-încrederea mai degrabă în confirmare decât în respingere - - - - - - - - - Lipsa de deschidere pentru testare de către alți experți - - - - - - - - - Lipsa progresului - - - - - - - - - Personalizarea problemelor - - - - - - - - - Utilizarea limbajului înșelător - - - - - - Granițele dintre știință și pseudoștiință - - - Ştiinţa patologică Referințe Despre autor - - - Nicolae Sfetcu - - - - - - De același autor - - - - - - Contact Editura - - - MultiMedia Publishing. (shrink)

Something amazing happened to me: in my book 2010, I have written about smolin’s book 2002 ‘Three roads to Quantum Gravity’. In 2017, smolin wrote the third edition of this book with revision and adding’ some material. Apparently nothing surprisingly… However, when I saw a commentary on his book 2017, I realized that these ‘revision and adding’ material introduces UNBELIEVABLE similarities between smolin’s new ideas (2017) and my ideas (2002-2008…including 2016a)! The problem is that these new ideas a completely NEW (...) comparing with all his ideas from the previous editions. The question arises immediately: ‘Why smolin introduced these ESSENTIAL ideas (which represent a NEW FRAMEWORK OF THINKING very similar to my EDWs perspective) 15 years later than the first edition?’ He named this new framework ‘relationalism’ (apparently the same name used by carlo rovelli in the past 1995) but who also came with a new relationalism very closed to my EDWs perspective in the same YEAR 2017! What is the probability lee smolin to introduce so many similar ideas to my ideas in 2017? The probability is ZERO! (shrink)