Computer simulation is shown to be philosophically interesting because it introduces a qualitatively new methodology for theory construction in science different from the conventional two components of "theory" and "experiment and/or observation". This component is "experimentation with theoretical models." Two examples from the physical sciences are presented for the purpose of demonstration but it is claimed that the biological and social sciences permit similar theoretical model experiments. Furthermore, computer simulation permits theoretical models for the evolution of physical systems which use (...) cellular automata rather than differential equations as their syntax. The great advantages of the former are indicated. (shrink)

Criteria are given to characterize mature theories in contradistinction to developing theories. We lean heavily on the physical sciences. An established theory is defined as a mature one with known validity limits. The approximate truth of such theories is thereby given a quantitative character. Superseding theories do not falsify established theories because the latter are protected by their validity limits. This view of scientific realism leads to ontological levels and cumulativity of knowledge. It is applied to a defense of realism (...) against recent attacks by Laudan. (shrink)

Theory reduction is analyzed and examples are presented from various branches of physics. The procedure takes different forms in different theories. Examples from various theories are arranged in increasing order of difficulty. Special emphasis is placed on the quantum to classical reduction. It is argued that there is good and interesting physics in theory reduction and that it deserves more attention than it has been receiving in the past.

It is claimed that the `problem of the arrow of time in classical dynamics' has been solved. Since all classical particles have a self-field (gravitational and in some cases also electromagnetic), their dynamics must include self-interaction. This fact and the observation that the domain of validity of classical physics is restricted to distances not less than of the order of a Compton wavelength (thus excluding point particles), leads to the conclusion that the fundamental classical equations of motion are not invariant (...) under time reversal: retarded self-interactions lead to different equations than advanced ones. Since causality (the time order of cause and effect) requires retarded rather than advanced self-interaction, it is causality which is ultimately responsible for the arrow of time. Classical motions described by equations with advanced self-interactions differ from retarded ones and do not occur in nature. (shrink)

Using a clear, non-technical style, Professor Rohrlich discusses the two major theories of twentieth-century physics: relativity and quantum mechanics. Discussed conceptually and philosophically, rather than using mathematics, the philosophical issues raised show how new discoveries forced physicists to accept often strange and unconventional notions. He aims to remove the mystery and misrepresentation that often surround the ideas of modern physics and to show how modern scientists construct theories, so that the reader can appreciate their successes and failures and understand problems (...) that are as yet unresolved. (shrink)

Our cognitive capabilities force us into a description of the world by levels. But theories on different levels result in descriptions that differ qualitatively. Therefore, the resulting incommensurability requires ontological bridges between such theories. These are obtained uniquely when the equations of the reduced theory are compared with a suitable limit of the equations of the reducing theory. Four case studies from theoretical physics and astronomy support this claim, two for theories of composites and two for non-composites (field theories). These (...) results a coherent view of a single real world despite its ontological pluralism. The cumulativity of scientific knowledge is thus ensured and realism is supported. (shrink)

Examination of attempts at theory reduction (S to T) shows that a process of cognitive emergence is involved in which concepts of S, Cs, emerge from T. This permits the 'bridge laws' to be stated. These are not in conflict with incommensurability of the Cs with the CT. Cognitive emergence may occur asymptotically or because of similarities of mathematical expressions; it is not necessarily holistic. Mereologically and nonmereologically related theory pairs are considered. Examples are chosen from physics. An important distinction (...) is made between 'theory reduction' and 'reductive explanation'. (shrink)

It is argued that time's arrow is present in all equations of motion. But it is absent in the point particle approximations commonly made. In particular, the Lorentz-Abraham-Dirac equation is time-reversal invariant only because it approximates the charged particle by a point. But since classical electrodynamics is valid only for finite size particles, the equations of motion for particles of finite size must be considered. Those equations are indeed found to lack time-reversal invariance, thus ensuring an arrow of time. Similarly, (...) more careful considerations of the equations of motion for gravitational interactions also show an arrow of time. The existence of arrows of time in quantum dynamics is also emphasized. (shrink)

Diese Ausgabe der Kategorienlehre Eduard von Hartmanns vereint alle drei Bande, die 1923 von Fritz Kern unter Beachtung der Verfasserhandschrift herausgegeben wurden. Im Mittelpunkt seiner Lehre steht fur Hartmann der Begriff der Kategorie, mit dem er eine unbewusste Intellektualfunktion von bestimmter Art und Weise oder eine unbewusste logische Determination, die eine bestimmte Beziehung setzt, bezeichnet. In den Kategorien der Sinnlichkeit" (erster Band), den Kategorien des reflektierenden Denkens" (zweiter Band) und den Kategorien des spekulativen Denkens" (dritter Band) werden die Kategorien (...) sodann erstens in der subjektiv idealen, zweitens in der objektiv realen und drittens in der metaphysischen Sphare behandelt. Demgemass bietet Hartmanns Werk mit dem ersten Band eine Erkenntnistheorie am Leitfaden der Kategorien, mit dem zweiten Band eine kategoriale Grundlegung der Naturphilosophie und mit dem dritten Band schliesslich eine Metaphysik. Unverandertes Reprint der Ausgabe von 1923.". (shrink)

Building on previous work, I continue the arguments for scientific realism in the presence of a natural level structure of science. That structure results from a cognitive antireductionism that calls for the retention of mature theories even though they have been "superseded". The level structure is based on "scientific truth" characterized by a theory's validity domain and the confirming empirical data. Reductionism (including fundamentalism) fails cognitively because of qualitative differences in the ontology and semantics of successive theories. This cognitive failure (...) exists in spite of the mathematical success of theory reduction. The claim for scientific realism is strongly based on theory coherence between theories on adjacent levels. Level coherence consists of mathematical relations between levels, as well as of reductive explanations. The latter refers to questions that can be posed (but not answered) on a superseded level, but which can be answered (explained) on the superseding level. In view of the pluralism generated by cognitive antireductionism, theory coherence is claimed to be so compelling that it provides strong epistemic justification for a pluralistic scientific realism. (shrink)

A new model of scientific explanation is proposed: the covering theory model. Its goal is understanding. One chooses the appropriate scientific theory and a model within it. From these follows the functioning of the explanandum, i.e. the way in which the model portrays it on one particular cognitive level. It requires an ontology and knowledge of the causal processes, probabilities, or potentialities (propensities) according to which it functions. This knowledge yields understanding. Explanations across cognitive levels demand pluralistic ontologies. An explanation (...) is believed or only accepted depending on the credibility of the theory and the idealizations in the model. (shrink)

This paper is part of Forum COVID-19: Perspectives in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Being a “trauma of mankind” epidemics have been a major subject of historical research for a long time and regarding every historical period. Recurring to the concept of Rudolf Schlögl (“Vergesellschaftung unter Anwesenden”) my proposal is to research epidemics as a history of the communicating body and thus including the contagium as part of this communication.

On the occasion of the centennial of his birth, Schrödinger's life and views are sketched and his critique of the interpretation of quantum mechanics accepted at his time is examined. His own interpretation, which he had to abandon after a short time, provides a prime example of the way in which the tentative meaning of central theoretical terms in a new and revolutionary theory often fails. Schrödinger's strong philosophical convictions have played a key role in his refusal to break with (...) many of the notions of classical physics. At the same time, they made him into a keen and incisive critic of the Copenhagen interpretation. His criticism is compared with present views on quantum mechanics. (shrink)

The validity of the equivalence principle is examined. Since classical physics is not valid for point particles, and a mass density over a finite volume tends to collapse, stabilizing forces are necessary. These cause a deviation from geodesic motion. That deviation is discussed in the light of recent results which provide approximate expressions for the self-force of a finite size particle due to both its mass and its charge. The equivalence principle appears to be violated.

The reduction from Einstein's to Newton's gravitation theories (and intermediate steps) is used to exemplify reduction in physical theories. Both dimensionless and dimensional reduction are presented, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are pointed out. It is concluded that neither a completely reductionist nor a completely antireductionist view can be maintained. Only the mathematical structure is strictly reducible. The interpretation (the model, the central concepts) of the superseded theory T′ can at best only partially be derived directly from the (...) superseding theory T; it is severely constrained by the mathematical structure, and it can involve qualitatively different central terms that cannot be logically related between T and T′. (shrink)