Avril Styrman

The systematization of evaluation criteria for scientific theories, also known as theoretical virtues, aims to enhance understanding and objectivity in theory evaluation, and thereby to facilitate consensus formation. Explanatory virtues play a crucial role here. They are well known individually, but lack a widely accepted organization, especially with regard to how simplicity integrates with the other explanatory virtues. This work introduces a unificatory model of virtues (UM), in which simplicity is integrated in a way that yields a concise hierarchical organization of the explanatory virtues. In UM, a theory’s accuracy, explanatory depth, internal consistency, and ontological simplicity are components of its unifying power, while its consistency and explanatory relations with other theories are components of both its external coherence and the unifying power of the set of theories under consideration. Arguably, UM is in some ways more advanced than the coherential virtue models of Michael Keas and Adolfas Mackonis, such as in providing a quantitative criterion for a theory’s fitness. UM and its comparison with the coherential models are valuable for anyone who seeks a deeper understanding of explanatory virtues.

In the classical ideal, a physical theory provides understandable dynamic explanations and yields novel predictions of phenomena. Relativistic Physics (RP), namely the special and general theories of relativity and relativistic cosmology, does not meet the classical ideal. This discrepancy has been addressed by transforming the classical ideal into a ‘relativistic methodology’, where it is accepted that nature is not fully understandable, predictions are prioritized over dynamic explanations, new phenomena may be accommodated in an orderly fashion with the aid of additional hypotheses, and anomalous data may be disregarded. Relativistic methodology and the enduring confidence in RP stem from tradition, where physicists who have learned to conceptualize reality through RP see it as the only alternative. The greatest 20th-century philosophers of science —Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend— have taught us that to fully understand a theory’s weaknesses, it must be juxtaposed with an alternate theory, and that its replacement requires a superior theory. Here, RP is confronted with Tuomo Suntola’s Dynamic Universe (DU). Suntola claims that DU matches or surpasses RP’s predictive accuracy for several central phenomena from the terrestrial to the largest cosmological scales, while adhering to the classical ideal and cohering with quantum mechanics. If this claim withstands scrutiny, DU deserves further attention from physicists, philosophers and funding institutions.

These are the proceedings of Physics and Reality 2024, International Conference on Philosophy of Physics, held at University of Helsinki, Finland, 4-6 June 2024. The conference was organised by the research project Appearance and Reality in Physics and Beyond that started in June 2023. The project is located in the Department of Philosophy, History and Art Studies, University of Helsinki. The conference explored central themes in philosophy of physics, including interpretations of quantum theory, geometric vs. dynamic approaches to relativistic phenomena, the project of unifying quantum theory and general relativity, and extending quantum theory to new domains. The conference provided a platform for representing well-informed novel ideas, which are needed as the theoretical foundations of physics are not ready. Moreover, it is to be noted that the greatest 20th century philosophers of science —Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend— reminded us that rival theories are needed to fully understand the weaknesses of a paradigmatic theory. Altogether 18 articles are included in the proceedings. Their authors and titles, the members of the organizing and program committees, and the peer reviewers are listed below. Helsinki, January 17, 2025 Avril Styrman, Paavo Pylkkänen and Saara Wuokko Editors Cosmology and Relativistic Phenomena Martín López-Corredoira. Alternative cosmologies Karen Crowther. On the Motivations for Seeking a Theory of Quantum Gravity Tuomo Suntola. The Dynamic Universe Avril Styrman. Evaluation of Theories and Methodologies: Relativistic Physics vs. the Dynamic Universe — With Remarks from Physics and Reality 2024 and Cosmology on Small Scales 2024 Conferences Tarja Kallio-Tamminen. Beyond wave-particle dualism: How Suntola's mass-wave concept unites physics and metaphysics Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila. A Neo-Aristotelian Approach to a Unified Theory of Physics Michal Křížek. Infrared measurements of the JWST suggest that our dynamic universe is spatially closed Álvaro Mozota Frauca. Quantum Cosmology and the Age of the Universe William Mark Stuckey and Michael Silberstein. Unifying Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics via Adynamical Global Constraints Michal Křížek and Václav Vavryčuk. Twin paradox in accelerated systems and the Equivalence Principle Enrico Maresca. Noncommutative Geometry and Spacetime: A Historical Reconstruction Quantum Perspectives, Scientific Metaphysics, and Free Will Vikram Athalye. Unifying Perspectives: All-encompassing Reality vs. All-inclusive Physics Paavo Pylkkänen. Was David Bohm a Wave Function Realist? Cristi Stoica. Structural Realism and the underdetermination of the physical meaning Maria Luisa Chiofalo. Quantum Toolbox for Neurobiology Sensory Systems Hans Liljenström. Can physics and neuroscience allow for free will? Alessandra Pulga. A Framework for Free Will within a Quantum Universe Kiran Pala and S Shalu. A Quantum Paradigm in Conscious Experience and Cognitive Process Organizing committee Paavo Pylkkänen, University of Helsinki (chair) Avril Styrman, University of Helsinki (vice-chair) Saara Wuokko, University of Helsinki (conference manager) Program committee Chris Fuchs, University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA Albert Solé, University of Barcelona, ES Marilu Chiofalo, University of Pisa, IT Bert Kappen, Radboud University, NL Paavo Pylkkänen, University of Helsinki, FI (chair) Avril Styrman, University of Helsinki, FI Saara Wuokko, University of Helsinki, FI Peer reviewers Vikram Athalye, Cummins College Pune, IN Jerome Busemeyer, Indiana University, USA Marilu Chiofalo, University of Pisa, IT Karen Crowther, University of Oslo, NO Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson, University of Helsinki, FI Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Aalto University, FI Tarja Kallio-Tamminen, Physics Foundations Society, FI Michal Křı́žek, Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ Petri Lievonen, Screen io, FI Martı́n López-Corredoira, Instituto de Astrofı́sica de Canarias, ES Olga Louchakova-Schwartz, University of California, US Prakash Mondal, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, IN Ilkka Pättiniemi, Helsinki Circle, FI Paavo Pylkkänen, University of Helsinki, FI Heikki Sipilä, Physics Foundations Society, FI Avril Styrman, University of Helsinki, FI Tuomo Suntola, Physics Foundations Society, FI Václav Vavryčuk, Czech Academy of Sciences, CZ

In the classical ideal, a physical theory provides understandable dynamic explanations and yields novel predictions of phenomena. Relativistic Physics (RP), namely the special and general theories of relativity and relativistic cosmology, does not meet this ideal. This discrepancy has been addressed by transforming the classical ideal into a ‘relativistic methodology’, where it is accepted that nature is not fully understandable, predictions are prioritized over dynamic explanations, new phenomena may be accommodated in an orderly fashion with the aid of additional hypotheses, and anomalous data may be disregarded. Relativistic methodology and the enduring confidence in RP stem from tradition, where physicists who have learned to conceptualize reality through RP see it as the only alternative. Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have taught us that to fully understand a theory’s weaknesses, it must be juxtaposed with an alternate theory, and that its replacement requires a superior theory. Here, RP is confronted with Tuomo Suntola’s Dynamic Universe (DU). Suntola claims that DU matches or surpasses RP’s predictive accuracy for several central phenomena from the terrestrial to the largest cosmological scales, while adhering to the classical ideal and cohering with quantum mechanics. If this claim withstands scrutiny, DU deserves further attention from physicists, philosophers and funding institutions.

I am proud to present the proceedings of the international workshop Unification in Physics and Philosophy. The workshop was arranged on May 9th-11th 2019 in Porvoo and Helsinki, Finland. The workshop and its proceedings are devoted to dealing with hard problems in physics and philosophy by unification. The basic idea is to strive for a minimal ontological core of hypothetical laws of nature that naturally resolve hard problems which are caused by disunified theories, and which cannot be properly resolved by focusing only on details of isolated topics. Unification is urgently needed, for neither in physics nor in philosophy do we find a commonly accepted ontological core that could function as a unifying base.

This work aims to make tense logic a more robust tool for ontologists, philosophers, knowledge engineers and programmers by outlining a fusion of tense logic and ontology of time. In order to make tense logic better understandable, the central formal primitives of standard tense logic are derived as theorems from an informal and intuitive ontology of time. In order to make formulation of temporal propositions easier, temporal operators that were introduced by Georg Henrik von Wright are developed, and mapped to the ontology of time.

Contemporary theoretical physics is divided into diversified theories of different phenomena. These are characteristically frameworks for giving mathematical descriptions of perceptions, in the absence of understandable explanations or a unified worldview. This is not an optimal state of affairs, for people by nature desire to understand; this sets a major obstacle for an optimal progress rate of physics, for understandable explanations are more prolific of new predictions and applications than non-understandable explanations. Disunification in physics can be remedied only by discovering an understandable ontology and applying it as the basis of unifying explanations of phenomena that were earlier explained by different theories. Due to disunified physics and the nature of traditional analysis in philosophy, there is no consensus about central concepts such as time, possibility and truth. It is suggested that philosophical analysis would be more prolific of understandable and applicable concepts, were it complemented by a method of unification.

This article portrays unification of physics as a central tenet of ErnstMach’s thought, and organizes some of the focal issues in philosophy of science around the process of unification of science. Mach finds a natural place in the history. Newton’s Principia marked the beginning of the era of mathematical physics, which developed triumphantly in the eighteenth century, until new phenomena were discovered in the nineteenth century whose explanations went over and above Newtonian physics. Also Positivism emerged in the nineteenth century. This was the setting where Mach entered. The notion that a central function of physics is to give mathematical descriptions of perceptions is all over Mach’s work, but in Mach’s thought mathematics comes together with hypothetical laws of nature and an overall world-view, similarly as in Newtonian physics where mathematics comes together with the laws of motion. Mach’s criticism of Newtonian absolute time and space was in line with positivism, and his suggestions about an overall holistic worldview were to function as an intuitive background for the new physics. Thus, as a physicist and a philosopher of physics, Mach should be seen primarily as a unifier, and his famous anti-metaphysics should be seen as derivative from this unificationist project: he did not intend to banish the metaphysical core that he himself proposed, but only metaphysics that is not needed in unified science.

The General Theory of Relativity (GR) and the Dynamic Universe (DU) are evaluated in how they explain frequencies of atomic clocks. DU and GR predict the frequencies with equal accuracy, but their explanations, the postulates they apply in the explanations and the word-views that come along with them are entirely different. The central argument is that if unified and under- standable physics is appreciated, then DU deserves to be taken as a viable alternative to GR. In GR different frequencies of identical atomic clocks are explained by letting rates of the flow of time in their frames of reference vary as functions of the clocks’ states of motion and gravitation. The GR- based world-view is nonunderstandable because GR violates absolute simultaneity, and disunified because quantum mechanics is built on different postulates than GR. In DU different frequencies of identical atomic clocks are explained by letting their frequencies vary as functions of their states of motion and gravitation. As DU commits to absolute simultaneity and as the postulates of DU suffice as the ontological ground of quantum mechanics at least partially, DU provides an under- standable and unified scientific world-view. Résumé: La théorie de la relativité générale (RG) et de l’univers dynamique (UD) sont évalués sur la fac ̧on dont ils expliquent les fréquences des horloges atomiques. La RG et l’UD prédisent les fréquences avec une précision égale, mais leurs explications, les postulats qu’ils appliquent aux explications et les visions du monde qui les accompagnent sont entie`rement différents. L’argument central est que si l’on reconnaˆıt la physique unifiée et compréhensible, alors l’UD mérite d’ être considéré comme une alternative viable à la RG. En RG, différentes fréquences d’horloges atomiques identiques sont expliquées en faisant varier les vitesses de l’écoulement du temps dans leurs cadres de référence en fonction des états de mouvement et de la gravitation des horloges. La vue du monde basée sur la RG est incompréhensible parce que la RG viole la simultanéité absolue, et est désunifiée parce que la mécanique quantique est construite sur des postulats différents de ceux de la RG. Dans l’UD, différentes fréquences d’horloges atomiques identiques sont expliquées en laissant leurs fréquences varier en fonction de leurs états de mouvement et de gravitation. Comme l’UD s’engage à la simultanéité absolue et que les postulats de l’UD suffisent, au moins en partie, comme fondements ontologiques de la mécanique quantique, l’UD fournit une vision du monde scientifique compréhensible et unifiée.

This doctoral dissertation introduces economical unification as a method of analysis and shows how it is applied in dealing with some topics that are central in contemporary philosophy. The method resembles a production line that consists of three successive elements which are interconnected in two stages: Economy > Ontology > Applications In the first stage, an economically unified ontology is explicated by applying the principle of economy, which is an evaluation criterion of alternative ontologies. An economically unified ontology is an empirically sufficient, metaphysically minimal and generally virtuous world-view or a belief system of a human being. In the second stage everything else is dealt with in terms of the ontology. The central argument is that economical unification is a more progressive method than plain conceptual analysis which proceeds in the absence of an economically unified ontology and without the principle of economy. Its progressiveness results from having economy as an unambiguous evaluation criterion, which enables explicating a stable and minimal unified ontology which functions as a common base for all topics, and which enables defining and disambiguating meanings of concepts, thereby facilitating their genuine understanding and resolving problems around them, more efficiently than without an economically unified ontology, and without an unambiguous evaluation criterion that would enable explicating it. The progressiveness of the method is substantiated by applying it in disambiguating some of the central concepts that are dealt with in contemporary philosophy such as time, truth and possibility, and in resolving problems around them. The method works: unification efficiently resolves problems whose central source is disunification itself. In other words, the absence of an economically unified ontology is a central source of problems and ambiguities in contemporary philosophy; in economical unification such problems are resolved by removing their source; their source is removed by replacing the absence of an economically unified ontology by bringing it in the center of the analysis. The holistic method that handles special topics in the top-down order by relying on an understandable world-view, is very different from traditional conceptual analysis that proceeds in the absence of an economically unified ontology, and even in the absence of having it as the goal, i.e., without economy or the degree of virtuousness as the criterion. Moreover, the method was formulated in order to systematically overcome those limitations of plain conceptual analysis which result from their absence. Traditional conceptual analysis proceeds typically by investigating isolated topics and various angles to them, but this does not manage to interconnect the isolated topics and thus does not resolve problems which are due to the isolation itself. It is practically impossible to unify many things by concentrating on one thing only, and the optimal rate of progress in philosophy and in science in general cannot be achieved if the analysis is limited into investigating isolated fragments. In order to achieve the optimal rate of progress, unification is needed in counterbalancing specialization. By looking at many individual pieces together, one can start streamlining them into a functional totality. In this process much is revealed about what kinds of parts are needed in the totality and what are not. The totality consists of interrelated parts, but in economical unification the overall picture of reality guides the development of its parts at least as strongly as the requirements for the parts guide the development of the totality. Economical unification can thus be seen merely as the project getting hold of the natural order where the totality and its parts interact, and whose alternative is to keep on investigating details of isolated parts blindfolded without worrying about their roles in a totality, for all parts that are applicable do have a role in a totality. One can and one should scrutinize any suggested totality and replace it when a better one is available, but not before a better one has been presented. This holds for contemporary paradigmatic theories and for everything that comes after them. This brings the focus to the question of what is the objective meaning of better. The suggested answer is: the more economically unified, the better. The most important starting point in the project of economical unification is the acceptance of the principle of economy or the degree of virtuousness as the evaluation criterion, for without a commonly accepted and acknowledged criterion the path towards consensus is unnecessarily long and painful. The easiest way of accepting economy as the criterion is understanding that its general acceptance would accelerate the progress rate of science, including philosophy: virtuousness as the criterion of theories likely results into more virtuous science, faster than without it. Once we have a common criterion, people no longer have to settle on agreeing to disagree, but people have leaped forward into evaluating which theory is objectively better. Everything can be scrutinised, including economy, but rejecting it without replacing it with a more progressive criterion means that one does not fully appreciate progress. Tämä väitöskirja esittelee ekonomisen unifikaation metodin ja soveltaa sitä filosofian keskeisiin aiheisiin. Metodi muistuttaa tuotantolinjaa mikä koostuu kolmesta peräkkäisestä elementistä jotka liittyvät toisiinsa kahdessa vaiheessa: Ekonomia > Ontologia > Sovellukset Ensimmäisessä vaiheessa eksplikoidaan ekonomisesti unifioitu ontologia soveltamalla ekonomian periaatetta, joka on vaihtoehtoisten ontologioiden arviointikriteeri. Ekonomisesti unifioitu ontologia on empiirisesti riittävä, metafyysisesti minimaalinen ja yleisesti hyveellinen maailmankuva. Toisessa vaiheessa sovellukset käsitellään ontologian avulla. Keskeinen väite on, että ekonominen unifikaatio on edistyksellisempi metodi kuin pelkkä käsitteellinen analyysi mikä etenee ilman ekonomisesti unifioitua ontologiaa, käyttämättä ekonomian periaatetta arviointikriteerinä. Metodin edistyksellisyys juontuu selkeästä ekonomian periaatteesta, mikä mahdollistaa stabiilin, yhtenäisen ja minimaalisen ontologian eksplikoinnin. Ontologia toimii kaikkien sovellusten käsittelyn yhtenäisenä pohjana ja mahdollistaa käsitteiden merkitysten selkeyttämisen ja niiden ympärillä olevien ongelmien ratkaisun, tehokkaammin kuin pelkkä käsitteellinen analyysi ilman yhtenäistä ontologiaa, ja ilman selkeää arviointikriteeriä mikä mahdollistaisi yhtenäisen ontologian eksplikoinnin. Metodin progressiivisuutta alleviivataan soveltamalla sitä. Joitain nykyfilosofian keskeisiä käsiteitä -kuten aika, totuus ja mahdollisuus- selkeytetään ja näitten ympärillä olevia ongelmia ratkaistaan. Metodi toimii: unifikaatio ratkaisee tehokkaasti ongelmia joiden keskinen syy on hajanaisuus. Toisin sanoen, ekonomisesti unifioidun ontologian poissaolo on nykyfilosofian ongelmien ja epämääräisyyksien keskeinen lähde; ekonomisen unifikaation metodissa tällaiset ongelmat ratkaistaan poistamalla niiden lähde; niiden lähde poistetaan korvaamalla ekonomisesti unifioidun ontologian poissaolo tuomalla se analyysin keskelle. Holistinen unifikaation metodi joka käsittelee sovelluksia ylhäältä-alas järjestyksessä, luottamalla intuitiiviseen maailmankuvaan on hyvin erilainen kuin perinteinen käsitteellinen analyysi joka etenee ilman yhtenäistä maailmankuvaa ja jopa tavoittelematta sitä, eli ilman ekonomian periaatetta arviointikriteerinä joka suosii yhtenäistä ja kaikin puolin hyveellistä maailmankuvaa. Ekonominen unifikaatio on luotu jotta näiden puutteesta johtuvista rajoitteista päästäisiin systemaattisesti yli. Perinteinen käsitteellinen analyysi etenee tyypillisesti tutkimalle lukuisia näkökulmia eristyneisiin aiheisiin; tällainen analyysi ei onnistu yhdistämään hajanaisia aiheita eikä täten kykene ratkaisemaan ongelmia joiden syy on hajanaisuus itse. Tieteen ja filosofian optimaalista edistystahtia ei voi saavuttaa rajoittumalla eristyneisiin fragmentteihin. Jotta optimaalinen edistystahti voitaisiin saavuttaa, unifikaatiota tarvitaan spesialisaation vastapainona. Katsomalla monia yksittäisiä osia yhdessä, voi ne saneerata toimivaksi kokonaisuudeksi. Tässä prosessissa selviää minkälaisia osia kokonaisuudessa tarvitaan ja mitä ei. Kokonaisuus koostuu yhteenliittyneistä osista, mutta ekonomisessa unifikaatiossa kokonaismaailmankuva ohjaa osiensa kehitystä vähintään yhtä vahvasti kuin vaatimukset osille ohjaavat kokonaisuuden kehitystä. Ekonomisen unifikaation voi täten nähdä luonnollisen järjestyksen tavoitteluna, missä kokonaisuus ja sen osat ovat interaktiossa, ja jonka vaihtoehto on jatkaa eristyneiden osien yksityiskohtien tutkimista side silmillä, huolehtimatta niiden roolista kokonaisuudessa, vaikka kaikki osat joita voi todellisuudessa käyttää, kuuluvat johonkin kokonaisuuteen. Kaikkia ehdotettuja kokonaisuuksia tulee tarkastella kriittisesti ja korvata ne paremmalla heti kun tällainen on saatavilla, mutta ei ennen kuin tällainen on esitetty. Tämä pätee nykyisiin paradigmaattisiin teorioihin ja kaikkeen mikä tulee niitten jälkeen. Tämä keskittää huomion kysymykseen siitä mikä on sanan parempi objektiivinen merkitys. Ehdotettu vastaus on: mitä enemmän ekonomisesti unifioitu, sitä parempi. Tärkein lähtökohta ekonomisessa unifikaatiossa on luonnollisesti ekonomian periaate tai teoreettisten hyveiden arvostaminen, koska tie konsensukseen on tarpeettoman pitkä ja tuskallinen ilman yleisesti hyväksyttyä ja tiedostettua arviointikriteeriä. Helpoin tapa hyväksyä ekonomian periaate on ymmärtää että sen yleinen hyväksyminen kiihdyttäisi tieteen ja filosofian kehitystahtia: hyveellisyys teorioiden arviointikriteerinä luonnollisesti johtaa hyveellisempään tieteeseen, nopeammin kuin ilman sitä. Yleisen kriteerin nojalla, ihmisten ei tarvitse tyytyä olemaan samaa mieltä siitä että he ovat subjektiivisesti eri mieltä, vaan he ovat harpanneet eteenpäin arvioimaan mikä teoria on objektiivisesti parempi. Ekonomian periaatetta voi kritisoida ja parantaa, mutta sen hylkääminen, korvaamatta sitä edistyksellisemmällä kriteerillä, ei ole edistyksellistä.

This article introduces finitist set theory (FST) and shows how it can be applied in modeling finite nested structures. Mereology is a straightforward foundation for transitive chains of part-whole relations between individuals but is incapable of modeling antitransitive chains. Traditional set theories are capable of modeling transitive and antitransitive chains of relations, but due to their function as foundations of mathematics they come with features that make them unnecessarily difficult in modeling finite structures. FST has been designed to function as a practical tool in modeling transitive and antitransitive chains of relations without suffering from difficulties of traditional set theories, and a major portion of the functionality of discrete mereology can be incorporated in FST. This makes FST a viable collection theory in ontological modeling.