Hans Halvorson

Niels Bohr was one of the central figures in the emergence of quantum mechanics and a paradigmatic example of a scientist who engaged reflectively with his own practice. For several decades, he was also a leading voice in the philosophical interpretation of the theory. Yet toward the end of the twentieth century his influence declined sharply, and his views came to be widely dismissed as obscure or irrelevant. To assess Bohr's contributions fairly, we need to resist the analytic philosopher's idealization that ontological questions can be separated from action---to treat questions about what there is as detachable from the concrete practices through which physical descriptions are articulated and assessed. This ontology-first approach fits uneasily with Bohr's philosophical sensibility, shaped by a Danish tradition that emphasized reflection on meaning, practice, and normative standards rather than the construction of metaphysical systems. Seen from this perspective, we see that Bohr's focus was not the limits of knowledge, but how knowledge gained in experimental contexts that are far beyond ordinary human experience can be communicated unambiguously.

I argue here that progress in understanding the lessons of quantum physics has been hindered by the tendency to cast Niels Bohr as a villain. Building on the work of Favrholdt, Faye, and Howard, I present a more accurate view of Bohr's proposal for the "epistemological lesson" of quantum physics. I then argue that several interpretive programs -- often presented as alternatives to Copenhagen -- are, after substantial conceptual work, arriving at a view that is notably similar to Bohr's. Using Maudlin’s formulation of the measurement problem as a foil, I argue that it relies on a notion of wave-function completeness that is inappropriate for a genuinely indeterministic theory, and one that Bohr consistently rejected. On Bohr's view, quantum theory permits concrete agents, situated within specific experimental contexts, to make objective descriptions, while refusing the demand for a single, context-free "description from nowhere".

This paper concerns the question of which collections of general relativistic spacetimes are deterministic relative to which definitions. We begin by considering a series of three definitions of increasing strength due to Belot (1995). The strongest of these definitions is particularly interesting for spacetime theories because it involves an asymmetry condition called ``rigidity'' that has been studied previously in a different context (Geroch 1969; Halvorson and Manchak 2022; Dewar 2024). We go on to explore other (stronger) asymmetry conditions that give rise to other (stronger) forms of determinism. We introduce a number of definitions of this type and clarify the relationships between them and the three considered by Belot. We go on to show that there are collections of general relativistic spacetimes that satisfy much stronger forms of determinism than previously known. We also highlight a number of open questions.

Determinism is the thesis that the past determines the future, but efforts to define it precisely have exposed deep methodological disagreements. Standard possible-worlds formulations of determinism presuppose an "agreement" relation between worlds, but this relation can be understood in multiple ways -- none of which is particularly clear. We critically examine the proliferation of definitions of determinism in the recent literature, arguing that these definitions fail to deliver clear verdicts about actual scientific theories. We advocate a return to a formal approach, in the logical tradition of Carnap, that treats determinism as a property of scientific theories, rather than an elusive metaphysical doctrine. We highlight two key distinctions: (1) the difference between qualitative and "full" determinism, as emphasized in recent discussions of physics and metaphysics, and (2) the distinction between weak and strong formal conditions on the uniqueness of world extensions. We argue that defining determinism in terms of metaphysical notions such as haecceities is unhelpful, whereas rigorous formal criteria -- such as Belot's D1 and D3 -- offer a tractable and scientifically relevant account. By clarifying what it means for a theory to be deterministic, we set the stage for a fruitful interaction between physics and metaphysics.

This paper concerns the question of which collections of general relativistic spacetimes are deterministic relative to which definitions. We begin by considering a series of three definitions of increasing strength due to Belot (1995). The strongest of these definitions is particularly interesting for spacetime theories because it involves an asymmetry condition called "rigidity" that has been studied previously in a different context (Geroch 1969; Halvorson and Manchak 2022; Dewar 2024). We go on to explore other (stronger) asymmetry conditions that give rise to other (stronger) forms of determinism. We introduce a number of definitions of this type and clarify the relationships between them and the three considered by Belot. We go on to show that there are collections of general relativistic spacetimes that satisfy much stronger forms of determinism than previously known. We also highlight a number of open questions.

In this text, I explore the intertwined relationship between philosophy of science and theology, and the challenges they both encounter in the academic realm. While theology is struggling to maintain its relevance, philosophy of science has gained recognition and offers valuable insights to theologians. I argue that theologians can benefit from engaging with the content and methods of specific sciences, and philosophers of science can help affirm the methodological legitimacy of theology. However, it is important to note that science itself is facing its own set of problems. There is a decline in interest and job satisfaction among scientists, a growing gap between science and the humanities, a crisis of conceptual understanding, and a perceived lack of meaning and purpose. In this context, I propose that theology and philosophy can play a crucial role in addressing these issues. In particular, theology can offer a supportive environment for discussing meaning, values, and the ultimate questions of human existence. Philosophy, on the other hand, can help bridge the gap between science and the humanities, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and a more holistic understanding of our world.

Max Jammer claimed that, "There can be no doubt that the Danish precursor of modern existentialism and neo-orthodox theology, Soren Kierkegaard, through his influence on Bohr, affected also the course of modern physics to some extent." Despite Jammer's failure to supply sufficient evidence for this claim, I argue that it is not completely off base. In particular, I argue that Kierkegaard and Bohr belong to a common philosophical tradition, and I begin to investigate some of the themes that characterize this tradition.

Kierkegaard's Either-Or is a book about the choice between aesthetic, ethical, and religious approaches to life. I show that Either-Or also contains a proposal for philosophy of science, and in particular, about the ideal epistemic state for human beings. Whereas the Cartesian-Hegelian tradition conceived of the ideal state as one of detached deliberation -- i.e. "seeing the world as it is in itself" -- Kierkegaard envisions the ideal state as the achievement of equilibrium between the "spectator" and "actor" aspects of the human being. Kierkegaard's proposal thus sets the stage for Niels Bohr's "epistemological lesson of quantum mechanics".

I argue against the claim -- advocated by Albert Einstein, Bernard Williams, and Ted Sider, among others -- that a description is objective only if it says how the world is in itself. Instead, I argue for the claim -- inspired by comments of Niels Bohr -- that a family of descriptions is objective only if they co-vary with their respective descriptive contexts. Moreover, I claim that "there is a shared objective reality" simply means that it is possible to satisfy this kind of covariance requirement.

How Logic Works is an introductory logic textbook that is different by design. Rather than teaching elementary symbolic logic as an abstract or rote mathematical exercise divorced from ordinary thinking, Hans Halvorson presents it as the skill of clear and rigorous reasoning, which is essential in all fields and walks of life, from the sciences to the humanities—anywhere that making good arguments, and spotting bad ones, is critical to success. Instead of teaching how to apply algorithms using “truth trees,” as in the vast majority of logic textbooks, How Logic Works builds on and reinforces the innate human skills of making and evaluating arguments. It does this by introducing the methods of natural deduction, an approach that teaches students not only how to carry out a proof and solve a problem but also what the principles of valid reasoning are and how they can be applied to any subject. The book also allows students to transition smoothly to more advanced topics in logic by teaching them general techniques that apply to more complicated scenarios, such as how to formulate theories about specific subject matter. How Logic Works shows that formal logic—far from being only for mathematicians or a diversion from the really deep questions of philosophy and human life—is the best account we have of what it means to be rational. By teaching logic in a way that makes students aware of how they already use it, the book will help them to become even better thinkers. A concise, readable, and user-friendly introduction to elementary symbolic logic that primarily uses natural deduction rather than algorithmic “truth trees” Draws on more than two decades’ experience teaching introductory logic to undergraduates Provides a stepping stone to more advanced topics