The stochastic phase-space solution of the particle localizability problem in relativistic quantum mechanics is reviewed. It leads to relativistically covariant probability measures that give rise to covariant and conserved probability currents. The resulting particle propagators are used in the formulation of stochastic geometries underlying a concept of quantum spacetime that is operationally based on stochastically extended quantum test particles. The epistemological implications of the intrinsic stochasticity of such quantum spacetime frameworks for microcausality, the EPR paradox, etc., are discussed.

There have been many attempts to determine what makes a natural kind real, chief among them is the criterion according to which natural kinds must be mind-independent. But it is difficult to specify this criterion: many supposed natural kinds have an element of mind-dependence. I will argue that the mind-independence criterion is nevertheless a good one, if correctly understood: the mind-independence criterion concerns the unification principles for natural kinds. Unification principles determine how natural kinds unify their properties, and (...) only those natural kinds that have a mind-independent unification principle should be considered real. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Cybernetic Foundations for Psychology” by Bernard Scott. Upshot: Psychology and sociology are distinct academic disciplines but nevertheless closely interrelated. What are the benefits of conceptual integration using a cybernetic approach and what are the strengths of progressing within the disciplinary paths?

A critique of conversational epistemic contextualism focusing initially on why pragmatic encroachment for knowledge is to be avoided. The data for pragmatic encroachment by way of greater costs of error and the complementary means to raise standards of introducing counter-possibilities are argued to be accountable for by prudence, fallibility and pragmatics. This theme is sharpened by a contrast in recommendations: holding a number of factors constant, when allegedly higher standards for knowing hold, invariantists still recommend assertion (action), while contextualists do (...) not. Given the knowledge norm of assertion, if one recommendation is preferable to the other, the result favors the preferred recommendation's account of knowledge. In the final section, I offer a unification of these criticisms centering on the contextualist use of 'epistemic position'. Their use imposes on threshold notions of justification, warrant, or knowledge tests that are suitable only to unlimited comparative or scalar notions like confidence or certainty and places them at one with an important strand of sceptical reasoning. (shrink)

Much epistemological theorizing is the attempt to specify what makes for meritorious cognition, but epistemologists have not, despite meritorious effort, achieved unity when it comes to picking out the feature and principles that are distinctive of epistemic normativity. In this essay we explain why this is the inevitable outcome. We isolate important but overlooked variations in the link between epistemological theorizing and the idea of epistemic unification, and then argue that much epistemological theorizing is misguided because it aims toward (...) complete epistemic unification when only partial epistemic unification, at best, is possible. But our arguments — based on work in moral epistemology and philosophical psychology — stop short of epistemological eliminativism, and thus we stake out a middle ground between philosophers such as Descartes, the earlier Alston, Audi, and the earlier BonJour on one hand and Rorty, Fish, and Patricia Churchland on the other. (shrink)

Moral philosophy has its version of physics’ search for a unified theory. Physicists have often thought it unseemly that the four fundamental forces governing how particles interact with each other cannot be reduced to one. Moral philosophers have often tried to unify the fundamental values governing how moral agents interact with each other. Bioethicists have mostly given up on complete unification and settled for drawing on multiple fundamental values. They see unification as a metatheoretical and unproductive project, too (...) much the stuff of physics and not enough like engineering. Still, there's been a long-running debate within bioethics about how many and which values to keep in the toolkit. Can autonomy, beneficence, and justice, fashioned into “principles,” do all of the essential work? Or are “dignity” and “solidarity,” for example, also sometimes necessary? The lead article in this issue of the Hastings Center Report argues for including solidarity in the kit. (shrink)

Buddhism and Hinduism appear to be separated by irreconcilable differences. I argue that this apparent gulf can be overcome. The argument has three main parts. First, I argue that the Buddhist doctrine of dependent arising is not a metaphysical principle of real causation, but a principle of fabrication. Second, I argue that this interpretation of dependent arising enables a unification of the main schools of Buddhism. Third, I argue that Buddhism can be unified fully with Advaita Vedānta, the most (...) important philosophical school of Hinduism, and I argue that a substantial unity can be established between Buddhism and the three main schools of Vedānta. In particular, Buddhism and Vedānta can agree that the highest aim and good consists in the direct realization of an unconditioned and pure mind or consciousness. (shrink)

Context: The field of psychology consists of many specialist domains of activity, which lack shared foundations. This means that the field as a whole lacks conceptual coherence. Problem: The aim of the article is to show how second-order cybernetics can provide both foundations and a unifying conceptual framework for psychology. Method: The field of psychology is overviewed. There is then a demonstration of how cybernetics can provide both foundations and a unifying conceptual framework. This entails defining some key cybernetics concepts (...) and showing how they have already permeated the field, largely implicitly, and showing how, when made explicit, they can unify the field. Results: I show how concepts from second-order cybernetics can unify “process” and “person” approaches within psychology and can also unify individual psychology and social psychology, a unification that also builds conceptual bridges with sociology. Implications: The results are of value for bringing order to an otherwise inchoate field. They afford better communication between those working in the field, which is likely to give rise to new research questions and more effective ways of tackling them. Constructivist content: Central to the article is a reliance on concepts taken from the constructivist perspective of second-order cybernetics. (shrink)

Can the 1985 proposal for the unification of the Christian churches co-authored by Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries in Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility still provide a realistic basis for the unification of the churches? This paper considers the proposal as an application of the ecumenical principle that no greater burden than necessary be imposed as a requisite for full ecclesial communion, and of the hierarchy of truths. It explores the basic presuppositions of the proposal in (...) light of Rahner’s reflections on the role of the creed within the context of theological pluralism. Finally, it considers the changing contours of global Christianity and the potential of Rahner’s thought to hold together in creative tension the at times competing currents of those who would locate the ultimate basis of unity in a maximalist theological orthodoxy and those who would find it in an almost exclusive emphasis on orthopraxy. (shrink)

Scholars of hermeneutics have recently taken up the task of elucidating Gadamer’s ethics by studying his work on the structure of understanding and human experience. This article seeks to contribute to that scholarship through an examination of Gadamer’s aesthetics. I suggest that Gadamer’s notions of play and aesthetic non-differentiation provide further resources for understanding Gadamer’s hermeneutic ethics as an ethics of non-differentiation, i.e., a unification of theory and practice (understanding and application). For Gadamer, an understanding of the good is (...) its enactment in the context of the dialogical play we find ourselves engaged in with others. Furthermore, Gadamer’s identification of aesthetic non-differentiation with play reveals that his ethics aims not only to unify theory and practice but also to unite participants in the ethical play as intersubjective elements of a shared experience. Retrieving the ethical import of Gadamer’s aesthetics also helps to unfold Gadamer’s suggestion that hermeneutics itself is an ethical enterprise. (shrink)

Scholars of hermeneutics have recently taken up the task of elucidating Gadamer’s ethics by studying his work on the structure of understanding and human experience. This article seeks to contribute to that scholarship through an examination of Gadamer’s aesthetics. I suggest that Gadamer’s notions of play and aesthetic non-differentiation provide further resources for understanding Gadamer’s hermeneutic ethics as an ethics of non-differentiation, i.e., a unification of theory and practice. For Gadamer, an understanding of the good is its enactment in (...) the context of the dialogical play we find ourselves engaged in with others. Furthermore, Gadamer’s identification of aesthetic non-differentiation with play reveals that his ethics aims not only to unify theory and practice but also to unite participants in the ethical play as intersubjective elements of a shared experience. Retrieving the ethical import of Gadamer’s aesthetics also helps to unfold Gadamer’s suggestion that hermeneutics itself is an ethical enterprise. (shrink)

Contents: PART 1. MODELS IN SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES. Joseph AGASSI: Why there is no theory of models. Ma??l??gorzata CZARNOCKA: Models and symbolic nature of knowledge. Adam GROBLER: The representational and the non-representational in models of scientific theories. Stephan HARTMANN: Models as a tool for the theory construction; some strategies of preliminary physics. William HERFEL: Nonlinear dynamical models as concrete construction. Elzbieta KA??L??USZY??N??SKA: Styles of thinking. Stathis PSILLOS: The cognitive interplay between theories and models: the case of 19th century optics. PART 2. (...) TOOLS OF SCIENCE. Nancy D. CARTWRIGHT, Towfic SHOMAR, Maricio SUAREZ: The tool-box of science. Javier ECHEVERRIA: The four contexts of scientific activity. Katline HAVAS: Continuity and change; kinds of negation in scientific progress. Matthias KAISER: The independence of scientific phenomena. W??l??adys??l??aw KRAJEWSKI: Scientific meta-philosophy. Ilkka NIINILUOTO: The emergence if scientific specialities: six models. Leszek NOWAK: Antirealism, realism and idealization. Rinat M. NUGAYEV: Classic, modern and postmodern scientific unification. Veikko RANTALA: Translation and scientific change. Gerhard SCHURZ: Theories and their applications - a case of nonmonotonic reasoning. Witold STRAWI??N??SKI: The unity of science today. Vardan TOROSIAN: Are the ethic and logic of science compatible. PART 3. UNSHARP APPROACHES IN SCIENCE. Ernest W. ADAMS: Problems and prospects in a theory of inexact first-order theories. Wolfgang BALZER and Gerhard ZOUBEK: On the comparison of approximative empirical claims. Gianpierro CATTANEO, Maria Luisa DALLA CHIARA, Roberto GIUNTINI: The unsharp approaches to quantum theory. Theo A.F. KUIPERS: Falsification versus efficient truth approximation. Bernhard LAUTH: Limiting decidability and probability. Jaros??l??aw PYKACZ: Many-valued logics in foundations of quantum mechanics. Roman R. ZAPATRIN: Logico-algebraic approach to spacetime quantization. (shrink)

The central concern in this tightly reasoned, technically written book is the logic of scientific explanation and its relation to the logic of ordinary language. Empirical differentiation, through the conceptual systems that shape ordinary discourse, can take various forms, but all utilize the related basic concepts of individuals, classes, and continua. In ordinary discourse these notions are essentially inexact, a feature which Körner handles through an adaption of Kleene's three valued logic. Any explanatory system, e.g., scientific theories, based on two (...) valued logic automatically represents an idealization introduced to provide a deductive unification of experience. In treating scientific theories Körner concentrates on mathematical systems and on explicating the various meanings of "necessary" which may characterize scientific laws. The final third of the book, on the relation between experience and scientific explanation, emphasizes the role of man as an active decision maker. Though Körner's conceptualistic approach raises difficulties and leaves many questions unanswered—and even unasked—his carefully ordered and precisely elaborated development presents a new and significant interpretation of the relation between an ordinary and theoretical language and their respective roles in man's understanding of reality.—E. M. M. (shrink)

The aim of this book is both to develop a logic of microreduction, primarily for dynamic theories, or theories that state and explain the attributes and behavior, rather than the evolutionary development, of the things in some domain and, also, to argue that a program of microreduction offers the best hope for the unification of science. After two initial chapters, developing the necessary logical tools and techniques, Causey gets to the central problem of microreduction. The fundamental idea is: a (...) theory, T2, involving entities and attributes proper to some domain, D2, is microreduced to a theory, T1, involving entities and attributes proper to some other domain, D1, when the entities of D2 are explained as structured wholes made up of elements of D1. Attributes present more of a problem. One must first select the classifying attributes which divide the entities of each domain into disjoint equivalence classes. The connecting sentences, relating attributes of D2 to attributes of D1 cannot be identity statements in a set-theoretic formulation but should be such in a more flexible formulation. On this basis, the author gives a detailed specification of the condition for a successful, i.e., no emergence, reduction of the ontology and laws of T2 to those of T1. The second half of the book is more programmatic defending the program of microreduction as the best, though presently unrealizable, means of unifying science. The objections to the program brought by Fodor and others are countered. Though the author’s detailed analysis is geared to the reduction of chemistry to physics, he believes that the same general method should also handle the reduction of social sciences to a science of individual behavior. (shrink)

Let us recapitulate here. A unified learning process is presented here, the principles of which are consistently applied through three distinct periods; the acquisition of knowledge, the analytical examination of it and a third stage where knowledge might be called wisdom. The last stage has been referred to as a synthetic function of memory, the stage where the significance of knowledge is revealed; an understanding of the whole, the capacity for understanding details within the whole, a generative stage of knowledge (...) similar to language, a revelatory knowledge, metaphysical, samadhi, heightened perception, vision.Throughout these stages the passive aspect of mind is emphasized as a practical learning technique in acquisition, analysis and understanding. That is exploited at a physical level in asanas, in the three thinking processes and in metaphysical realization. Quotes illustrate this aspect as a basic principle of the mind, of metaphysics and of the acquisition of knowledge at different levels. This principle is used to explain aesthetic experience and ultimate realization. The reason for its predominance and the metaphysical presuppositions that perhaps cleared the way for systematic training in this technique have been given. It is of interest to note that systematic training in this technique still occurs in India today.This process is a peculiar union of memory and perceptive capacities. Essentially, the haphazard memory fund is eliminated for a form of creative and exact thinking or knowledge. This unification of memory and perception has given this paper its name. This learning process has as its aim not the accumulation of knowledge but guidance in correct thinking. It stems from the realization that our perception is conditioned by our memory, that is, the limitations of our knowledge. That conditioning, like ajñāna, prevents us from knowing what we do not know. The transformation involved requires an instantaneous understanding which, while remaining aware of the objects of perception and the process of perception, really centres in the perceiver himself.An old Lapp song brings out the paradox in memory: And its we too, Our memory, memory of ourselves... Disappears, disappears... We remember and we've forgotten. We are both old.The Chandogya states: smaramupāssva Ch. U 7.13.1, devoted yourself to memory. (shrink)

We show that the variety of Heyting algebras has finitary unification type. We also show that the subvariety obtained by adding it De Morgan law is the biggest variety of Heyting algebras having unitary unification type. Proofs make essential use of suitable characterizations (both from the semantic and the syntactic side) of finitely presented projective algebras.

We characterize (both from a syntactic and an algebraic point of view) the normal K4-logics for which unification is filtering. We also give a sufficient semantic criterion for existence of most general unifiers, covering natural extensions of K4.2⁺ (i.e., of the modal system obtained from K4 by adding to it, as a further axiom schemata, the modal translation of the weak excluded middle principle).

We investigate finitarity of unification types in locally finite varieties of Heyting algebras, giving both positive and negative results. We make essential use of finite dualities within a conceptualization for E-unification theory 733–752) relying on the algebraic notion of a projective object.

In this article we criticize two recent articles that examinethe relation between explanation and unification. Halonen and Hintikka (1999), on the one hand,claim that no unification is explanation. Schurz (1999), on the other hand, claims that all explanationis unification. We give counterexamples to both claims. We propose a pluralistic approach to the problem:explanation sometimes consists in unification, but in other cases different kinds of explanation(e.g., causal explanation) are required; and none of these kinds is more fundamental.

There is a strong tendency in science to opt for simpler and more unified hypotheses. A view that has often been voiced is that such qualities, though aesthetically pleasing or beautiful, are at best pragmatic considerations in matters of choosing between rival hypotheses. This essay offers a novel conception and an associated measure of unification, both of which are manifestly more than just pragmatic considerations. The discussion commences with a brief survey of some failed attempts to conceptualise unification. (...) It then proceeds to an analysis of the notions of confirmational connectedness and disconnectedness, as these are essential ingredients in the proposed conception of unification and its associated measure. Roughly speaking, the notions attempt to capture the way support flows or fails to flow between the content parts of a hypothesis. Equally roughly, the more the content of a hypothesis is confirmationally connected, i.e. support flows between its content parts, the more that content is unified. Since the confirmational connectedness of two content parts is determined by purely objective matters of fact, the proposed notion and measure of unification are themselves strictly objective, i.e. not merely pragmatic. The essay concludes with a discussion of how the proposed measure handles several examples but also how it relates to the debate over measures of coherence.En la ciencia hay una marcada tendencia a preferir las hipotesis mas simples y unificadas. Una opinion mantenida a menudo es que tales cualidades, aun siendo atractivas o esteticamente satisfactorias, constituyen consideraciones pragmaticas, a lo sumo, en el asunto de la eleccion entre teorias rivales. Este ensayo ofrece una concepcion novedosa de unificacion y una medida asociada a ella, ambas claramente algo mas que meras consideraciones pragmaticas. La discusion comienza con un breve repaso de algunos intentos fallidos de conceptualizar la unificacion. Despues se analizan las nociones de conexion y desconexion confirmacional, componentes esenciales en la nocion de unificacion y la medida asociada que aqui se proponen. Dicho brevemente, esas nociones pretenden captar el modo en que el apoyo discurre o no entre las partes del contenido de las hipotesis. Simplificando, cuanto mas conectado confirmacionalmente esta el contenido de una hipotesis, mas unificado esta. Dado que la conectividad confirmacional de dos partes del contenido esta determinada por cuestiones de hecho objetivas, la nocion y la medida que propongo son tambien estrictamente objetivas, esto es, su valor no es meramente pragmatico. El ensayo concluye con una discusion sobre como la medida propuesta afronta diversos ejemplos y sobre su relacion con el debate sobre las diferentes medidas de coherencia. (shrink)

This article has three aims. The first is to give a partial explication of the concept of unification. My explication will be partial because I confine myself to unification of particular events, because I do not consider events of a quantitative nature, and discuss only deductive cases. The second aim is to analyze how unification can be reached. My third aim is to show that unification is an intellectual benefit. Instead of being an intellectual benefit (...) class='Hi'>unification could be an intellectual harm, i.e., a state of mind we should try to avoid by all means. By calling unification an intellectual benefit, we claim that this form of understanding has an intrinsic value for us. I argue that unification really has this alleged intrinsic value. (shrink)

The following is an essay on the notion of scientific explanation as unification. In it a new notion of content is used to explicate Michael Friedman's notion of "k-atomicity," and to explicate the notion of the surplus content of hypothesis h relative to evidence e. From this basis an analysis of unification as theoretical reduction is advanced. A second notion of unification, unification as reconciling prima facie incompatible statements, is introduced again with the aid of this (...) new notion of content. More generally, it is argued that rather than seek the essence of scientific explanation we should carefully catalog the various distinct explanatory virtues. Finally it is argue that in particular philosophical explanations put a high premium on the quality of unification through showing how to make compatible seemingly irreconcilable claims. (shrink)

In this article we criticize two recent articles that examine the relation between explanation and unification. Halonen and Hintikka (1999), on the one hand, claim that no unification is explanation. Schurz (1999), on the other hand, claims that all explanation is unification. We give counterexamples to both claims. We propose a pluralistic approach to the problem: explanation sometimes consists in unification, but in other cases different kinds of explanation (e.g., causal explanation) are required; and none of (...) these kinds is more fundamental. (shrink)

This paper presents an algorithm that, given a finite set E of pairs of second-order monadic terms, returns a finite set U of ‘substitution schemata’ such that a substitution unifies E iff it is an instance of some member of U . Moreover, E is unifiable precisely if U is not empty. The algorithm terminates on all inputs, unlike the unification algorithms for second-order monadic terms developed by G. Huet and G. Winterstein. The substitution schemata in U use expressions (...) which represent sets of terms that differ only in how many times designated strings of function constants follow themselves. The substitution schemata may contain unresolved ‘identity restrictions’; consequently, the members of U generally do not characterize all the unifiers of E in a completely explicit way. The algorithm is particularly useful for investigating the complexity of formal proofs. (shrink)

In the paper it is shown that every physically sound Birkhoff - von Neumann quantum logic, i.e., an orthomodular partially ordered set with an ordering set of probability measures can be treated as partial infini te-valued Lukasiewicz logic, which unifies two competing approaches: the many-valued, and the two-valued but non-distributive, which have co-existed in the quantum logic theory since its very beginning.

In the paper it is shown that every physically sound Birkhoff – von Neumann quantum logic, i.e., an orthomodular partially ordered set with an ordering set of probability measures can be treated as partial infinite-valued Łukasiewicz logic, which unifies two competing approaches: the many-valued, and the two-valued but non-distributive, which have co-existed in the quantum logic theory since its very beginning.

Given the diversity of explanatory practices that is typical of the sciences a healthy pluralism would seem to be desirable where theories of explanation are concerned. Nevertheless, I argue that explanations are only unifying in Kitcher's unificationist sense if they are backed by the kind of understanding of underlying mechanisms, dispositions, constitutions, and dependencies that is central to a causalist account of explanation. This case can be made through analysis of Kitcher's account of the conditions under which apparent improvements in (...) unifying power may be judged spurious. But to clarify what is at issue I consider an archaeological case in which debate about the merits of an ambitious explanatory account reproduces exactly the intuitions that divide Salmon and Kitcher. The case in question is the “demic-diffusion” account of contemporary linguistic diversity advanced by Renfrew in the late 1980s: the thesis that the diffusion of agricultural populations, itself attributed to demographic pressure, was responsible for the spread of the ancestral root languages (e.g., proto-Indo-Eurpoean) that account for the existence and distribution of linguistic macrofamilies. The credibility of this powerfully unifying argument pattern depends entirely on the plausibility of its claims about the conditions and mechanisms actually responsible for the explanandum, the spread of agriculture, and not on an elaboration of its unificationist virtues. (shrink)

Le modèle unificationniste de l’explication métaphysique, basé sur les travaux de Kitcher sur l’explication scientifique, offre une alternative intéressante aux modèles présumant la conception supportive de l’explication métaphysique [backing model]. Par contre, le caractère adéquat de ce modèle, i.e. sa capacité à classifier comme métaphysiquement explicative/non-explicative des propositions qui préthéoriquement sont classés comme tel, n’a pas encore été exploré. Pour ce faire, des interprétations pour les relations de détermination et d’appartenance à un ensemble sont fournies. Celles-ci étant potentiellement sujette au (...) problème d’artificialité, i.e. présence d’un biais structurel favorisant l’attribution du caractère explicatif, une réponse est offerte. En effet, le modèle unificationniste permet d’identifier les patrons argumentatifs pouvant être légitimement mis en compétition en comparant la distance entre les ensembles de faits qui doivent être considérés comme vrais dans la formulation d’un patron argumentatif. Cette propriété a des conséquences intéressantes dans l’identification du niveau adéquat de débat entre des propositions compétitrices. (shrink)

— via appropriate substitutions — syntactically identical. The method can be applied directly to quantifierfree formulae and, in this paper, will b e extended in a natural and strai ghlforward way to quantified formulae.

ABSTRACTLadyman and Ross’s account of the metaphysical component of ontic structural realism was associated with a unificationist view of the connection between fundamental physics and special sciences. The aim of the present article is to assess the sense of unification that is at issue in Ladyman and Ross’s definition of metaphysics. Given the ontic core of Ladyman and Ross’s version of structural realism, it should be assumed that the unifying endeavour is worthwhile only if the connective links that underpin (...) unification are metaphysically significant. Ladyman and Ross employed information-theoretic notions, e.g. ‘projectibility’, to account for the significance of real patterns, which underpin unification. I build upon McAllister’s engagements with the same topic, to argue that these notions fail to accomplish this objective. (shrink)

The epistemological problems of unification of two distinct theories are discussed. An approach related to the work of Soviet authors (Stepin, Podgoretzky and Smorodinsky) is used and developed. The notion of ‘crossbred objects’—theoretical objects with contradictory properties which are part of the domain of application of two independent theories—is introduced which helps to describe the dynamics of revolutionary theory change. The occurrence of the cross-contradiction of two theories is reconstructed and the reductionistic and the synthetic means of its elimination (...) are proposed. The results of the methodological analysis are applied to the paradox of equivalence. (shrink)

The HOU-based analysis of ellipsis was shown byDalrymple et al. (1991) and Shieber et al. (1996) to correctly capture thecomplex interaction of VP-ellipsis, scope and anaphora and claimed toextend to further related phenomena. When applied to deaccenting, theanalysis makes a strong prediction, namely that all anaphors occurringin the deaccented part of a deaccented utterance are parallelanaphors, i.e., anaphors that resolve to their parallel counterpart inthe source. I argue that this prediction is supported by the data andshow that it correctly captures (...) the interaction of deaccenting withanaphora, (in)definiteness and focus. (shrink)

In this chapter I discuss the attempts by Theodor Kaluza [Kaluza, T., 1921. Zum Unitätproblem der Physik. Sitzungsber. der K. Ak. der Wiss. zu Berlin, 966–972] and by Oskar Klein [Klein, O., 1926a. Quantentheorie und fünfdimensionale Relativitätstheorie. Zeitschrift für Physik 37 (12), 895–906; Klein, O., 1926b. The atomicity of electricity as a quantum theory law. Nature 118, 516], respectively, to unify electromagnetism and general relativity within a five-dimensional Riemannian manifold. I critically compare Kaluza's results to Klein's. Klein's theory possesses more (...) explanatory power and unificatory strength and uses less types of brute facts than Kaluza's. The characteristic feature of Klein's theory is that it relies on an extrinsic element of unification, i.e. the wavefunction behavior, which is not intrinsic to EM or GR. Finally, I compare and discuss Kaluza's and Klein's theories in the context of Tim Maudlin's [Maudlin, T., 1996. On the unification of physics. Journal of Philosophy 93 (3), 129–144] ranking of unification and I clarify in what sense they constitute counterexamples to some of Margaret Morrison's [Morrison, M., 2000. Unifying Scientific Theories: Physical Concepts and Mathematical Structures. Cambridge University Press] assertions about unification. (shrink)

A nonstandard viewpoint to quantum gravity is discussed. General relativity and quantum mechanics are to be related as two descriptions of the same, e.g. as Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s wave mechanics merged in the contemporary quantum mechanics. From the viewpoint of general relativity one can search for that generalization of relativity implying the in-variance “within – out of” of the same system.

The widespread mistrust of metaphysics-the main obstacle to the unification of physics and philosophy-is based on the myth that metaphysical claims cannot be falsified or verified, because they are supposedly true independently of empirical knowledge. This is not true of metaphysical naturalism, whose approach is to critically reflect on the theories and findings of all the empirical disciplines and abstract from them a theory about such general features of reality that no single empirical discipline can be the authority on. (...) Causation is such a feature, since its instances include anything from planetary motions to particle interactions, chemical reactions, biological functions, and closing a door. Consequently, a general account of causation is beyond any particular empirical discipline. Metaphysical naturalism takes a meta-perspective on the results of the empirical sciences and attempts to figure out how it fits together in a coherent whole, e.g. by offering a general account of causation. General accounts of this kind are falsifiable in so far as the theories are falsifiable from which they are generalizations. The paper also discusses some fundamental metaphysical principles implicitly assumed by the sciences generally, and why they imply that unification is methodologically virtuous. (shrink)

The goals of this paper are twofold. The first is to show that William James' discussion in The Varieties of Religious Experience of the divided self and the process of its unification offers an invaluable lens through which to understand the conversion experience of Augustine as presented in his Confessions. The second is explore the question of how Augustine became a divided self, a question that James chooses not to speculate about because he is suspicious of theories of causality, (...) especially those that have little if any empirical evidence in their support. To explore this question, I will discuss E. R. Dodds' article, "Augustine's Confessions: A Study of Spiritual Maladjustment." He was Professor of Greek at the University of Birmingham at the time that the article was published, and later Professor of Classics at Oxford University. Dodds believes that the origins of Augustine's divided self "are to be looked for in his family history" and he makes what I consider to be a persuasive case in support of this belief. Significantly, his discussion of Augustine as a divided self has distinct resonances with James's own discussion, suggesting that he was almost certainly aware of James' earlier work. (shrink)

Three types of unification patterns in the history of physics are considered. The paradigmatic example of synthesis is chosen to be Maxwell’s fusion of electricity, magnetism and light. The analysis of Maxwell’s works enables to extract three hallmarks of any successful scientific unification. The hallmarks appear to be crucial since any violation of them inevitably leads to a radical decrease of the unifying theory’s predictive power. It is contended that classical (Maxwell) and modern (Einstein) milestones of physics growth (...) are in good agreement with the rules extracted. However, all the three basic stages of ‘post-modern’ physics – i.e. the electroweak theory of Weinberg and Salam, GUTs and SUSY approach culminating in the superstrings – can be described as violations of the synthesis rules. (shrink)

We show that the D A -unification problem is undecidable. That is, given two binary function symbols $\bigoplus$ and $\bigotimes$ , variables and constants, it is undecidable if two terms built from these symbols can be unified provided the following D A -axioms hold: \begin{align*}(x \bigoplus y) \bigotimes z &= (x \bigotimes z) \bigoplus (y \bigotimes z),\\x \bigotimes (y \bigoplus z) &= (x \bigotimes y) \bigoplus (x \bigotimes z),\\x \bigoplus (y \bigoplus z) &= (x \bigoplus y) \bigoplus z.\end{align*} Two (...) terms are D A -unifiable (i.e. an equation is solvable in D A ) if there exist terms to be substituted for their variables such that the resulting terms are equal in the equational theory D A . This is the smallest currently known axiomatic subset of Hilbert's tenth problem for which an undecidability result has been obtained. (shrink)

We show that the $\mathrm{D_A}$-unification problem is undecidable. That is, given two binary function symbols $\bigoplus$ and $\bigotimes$, variables and constants, it is undecidable if two terms built from these symbols can be unified provided the following $\mathrm{D_A}$-axioms hold: \begin{align*}(x \bigoplus y) \bigotimes z &= (x \bigotimes z) \bigoplus (y \bigotimes z),\\x \bigotimes (y \bigoplus z) &= (x \bigotimes y) \bigoplus (x \bigotimes z),\\x \bigoplus (y \bigoplus z) &= (x \bigoplus y) \bigoplus z.\end{align*} Two terms are $\mathrm{D_A}$-unifiable (i.e. an (...) equation is solvable in $\mathrm{D_A}$) if there exist terms to be substituted for their variables such that the resulting terms are equal in the equational theory $\mathrm{D_A}$. This is the smallest currently known axiomatic subset of Hilbert's tenth problem for which an undecidability result has been obtained. (shrink)

Within a digital corpus of 20 Italian post-unification conduct books, UAM CorpusTool is used to perform a manual annotation of 13 emotive rhetorical figures as indices of “shown” emotion. The analysis consists in two text mining tasks: classification, which identifies emotive figures using the 13 categories, and clustering, which identifies groups, i.e. clusters where emotive figures co-occur. Emotive clusters mainly discuss diligence and parsimony—personal values linked to self-improvement for which reader agreement is not taken for granted. In this corpus (...) they function as “moving” values, that is, values acting recurrently as contexts for “argued” emotion. (shrink)

RESUMO No Curso de Inverno de 1928/29, Heidegger afirmou que a matematização irrestrita no conhecimento dos seres vivos resultaria numa falha no propósito de elaborar a ontologia da vida orgânica. No presente artigo, examino as razões que justificam essa concepção. Com base em interpretações das investigações de biólogos como Hans Driesch J. v. Uexküll e Hans Spemann, o argumento de Heidegger integra quatro passos: 1) uma abordagem mereológica do corpo orgânico, concebido como uma unidade funcional de aptidões e intrinsecamente relacionado (...) a um ambiente; 2) uma análise formal da constituição dinâmica das aptidões, cuja estrutura pulsional consiste no atravessamento regulatório de uma dimensão; 3) uma interpretação do princípio de unificação das aptidões em termos da aptidão para comportar-se com algo em um ambiente. Esta argumentação leva a duas conclusões gerais: a matematização irrestrita implica uma descrição mecânica que supõe a desconsideração da determinação modal dos organismos; a estrutura dimensional, regulatória e protointencional das aptidões orgânicas é o fator limitante da matematização da vida.ABSTRACT In the Winter Course of 1928/29, Heidegger declared that an unrestricted mathematical determination in the knowledge of living beings would imply a failure in the purpose of developing the ontology for organic life. In this paper, I examine the reasons that justify this idea. Based on interpretations of biological researches carried by Hans Driesch, J. v. Uexküll and Hans Spemann, Heidegger’s argument has three steps 1) a mereological account of the organic body, which is conceived both as a functional unity of capabilities and as intrinsically related to an environment; 2) a formal analysis of the dynamic constitution of capabilities, which instinctually driven structure is a regulatory traversing of a dimension; 3) an interpretation of the unification principle of capabilities, which is conceived as a capability of behaving towards something within an environment. This argument entails two general conclusions: first, the unrestricted mathematical determination implies a mechanical description that presupposes the neglect of the modal structure of organisms; second, the dimensional, regulatory and proto-intentional structure of the organic capabilities is the limiting factor of the mathematical determination of living organisms. (shrink)

Durante las últimas décadas, la biología ha sido objeto de una considerable proliferación teórica y subdisciplinar, hecho que suscita la pregunta acerca de su unidad. Por ello, a partir del abandono del reduccionismo como estrategia unificadora, el interrogante filosófico es qué otras formas alternativas de relaciones subdisciplinares son posibles, y si dichas relaciones logran dar unidad a la biología. En el presente artículo, a partir de una breve consideración de algunos de los problemas que el programa reduccionista ha tenido en (...) biología, analizaremos diferentes tipos de relaciones que se encuentran entre las subdisciplinas de la biología contemporánea. En particular, indagaremos cuatro de las principales propuestas que pueden encontrarse en la literatura filosófica especializada; ofrecemos entonces dos nuevas propuestas de relación interdisciplinar: el isomorfismo de la biología evolutiva, e la importación/exportación de cuerpos teóricos, propia de la relación entre la ecología y la fisiología. Finalmente, presentaremos algunas consideraciones en torno al objetivo de la unidad de la ciencia en general, como también acerca de la clase de cohesión que creemos posible para la biología a partir de nuestros análisis, defendiendo la idea de un pluralismo de las relaciones interdisciplinares y de la unidad como un fenómeno local. Over the last decades, in biology there has been a proliferation of subdisciplines and theories, and this poses a question about its unity. Consequently, after reductionism was abandoned as a unifying strategy, philosophical questions have been raised about the possibility of alternative forms of relations among the subdisciplines, and whether they can effectively accomplish a unity of biology. This article starts with a brief consideration of some of the problems that the reductionist program confronts in biology, and then analyzes different kind of relations that are present among the subdisciplines of contemporary biology. In particular, we investigate four of the main proposals that can be found in the specialized philosophical literature; and then we propose two models of inter-disciplinary relations: isomorphism in evolutionary biology, and import/export of theoretical corpus, present in the relation between ecology and physiology. Finally, we offer a few ideas on unity as a goal for science in general, and also about the kind of cohesion that we think to be possible for biology based on our analysis. Thus, we defend the idea of pluralism of inter-disciplinary relations and of unity as a local phenomenon. (shrink)

Devant la complexité des questions environnementales et leur traitement difficile, cet Essai fait l'hypothèse qu'une confrontation des textes de Hans Jonas et d'André Stanguennec atteste que la réelle prise en compte des conditions de vie dans "l'écosphère" suppose une "sagesse pratique", fruit d'un savoir élaboré et mis en question dans les chemins dialectiques d'unification de la pensée et de l'être.

The article individuates free self-alienation and reconciliation as the specific characters of the last chapter of Phenomenology of Spirit, in contrast to an interpretation of absolute knowing as appropriation of otherness within selfconsciousness. Such self-alienation has already been developed by Hegel in the chapter “Religion”. The limit of religion depends on the last opposition to otherness, and not on to the presence of otherness itself, which has already been taken off along the path of self-becoming and self-consciousness. The overcoming of (...) this opposition represents the crucial difference between self-consciousness in chapter IV and self-consciousness of spirit. The inclusion of otherness is realized in the content of revealed religion, but not in the its form, which is imprisoned in the reference to an abstract divinity. The aim of absolute knowing is to change the sense of absoluteness, which has to mean the overcoming of Entfremdung through Entäusserung and Versöhnung, or through the unification of self-consciousness with consciousness: absolute spirit becomes other from itself and includes the other in its own identity. (shrink)