James Mattingly

Theories of action tend to require agents to have mental representations. A common trope in discussions of artificial intelligence (AI) is that they do not, and so cannot be agents. Properly understood there may be something to the requirement, but the trope is badly misguided. Here we provide an account of representation for AI that is sufficient to underwrite attributions to these systems of ownership, action, and responsibility. Existing accounts of mental representation tend to be too demanding and unparsimonious. We offer instead a minimalist account of representation that ascribes only those features necessary for explaining action, trimming the “extra” features in existing accounts (e.g., representation as a “mental” phenomenon). Our account makes ‘representation’ whatever it is that, for example, the thermostat is doing with the thermometer. The thermostat is disposed to act as long as the thermometer is outside a given range of parameters.. Our account allows us to offer a new perspective on the ‘responsibility gap’, a problem raised by the actions of sophisticated machines: because nobody has enough control over the machine’s actions to be able to assume responsibility, conventional approaches to responsibility ascription are inappropriate. We argue that there is a distinction between finding responsible and holding responsible and, in order to resolve the responsibility gap, we must first clarify the conceptual terrain on which agent is in fact responsible.

One common objection to Dretske’s Information Theoretic Account of Knowledge (ITAK) is that it violates closure. I show that it does not, and that extant arguments attempting to establish that it does rely instead on the KK thesis. That thesis does fail for ITAK. I show moreover that an interesting consequence of ITAK obeying the closure principle after all is that on this view if skepticism is false, we can have a great deal of empirical knowledge, but it is in principle impossible to know that skepticism is false. In short, a proper understanding of how ITAK closes off the KK thesis shows that we can 1) take seriously the skeptic, we can 2) respond to her appropriately that we do have knowledge and we can 3) keep closure.

An ambitious new model of experimentation that will reorient our understanding of the key features of experimental practice. What is experimental knowledge, and how do we get it? While there is general agreement that experiment is a crucial source of scientific knowledge, how experiment generates that knowledge is far more contentious. In this book, philosopher of science James Mattingly explains how experiments function. Specifically, he discusses what it is about experimental practice that transforms observations of what may be very localized, particular, isolated systems into what may be global, general, integrated empirical knowledge. Mattingly argues that the purpose of experimentation is the same as the purpose of any other knowledge-generating enterprise—to change the state of information of the knower. This trivial-seeming point has a non-trivial consequence: to understand a knowledge-generating enterprise, we should follow the flow of information. Therefore, the account of experimental knowledge Mattingly provides is based on understanding how information flows in experiments: what facilitates that flow, what hinders it, and what characteristics allow it to flow from system to system, into the heads of researchers, and finally into our store of scientific knowledge.

The foundations of quantum gravity are considered. A challenge is made to the assumption that the gravitational field is quantized. The semiclassical theory of gravity, particularly its relation to classical general relativity, is examined. The status of energy conditions in classical and semiclassical gravity is assessed. It is concluded that, as currently understood, the energy conditions required for proving singularity theorems do not hold. General issues in the philosophy of science are raised, and an analysis of the semantic conception of theories is undertaken. It is shown that the basic philosophical presupposition of that conception---that formulations of theories are irrelevant---is untenable. Examples include the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry, the transition from classical to quantum mechanics, and the development of quantum field theory on curved spacetime from quantum field theory in Minkowski space. ;I argue for three significant and novel theses in the philosophy of science. First I have attempted to show that the semiclassical theory of gravity is significant as a theory and that it thus merits philosophical attention and reflection upon by philosophers of science. This is a point that has been long overlooked in the philosophy of science. ;Second I have indicated how the insights generated by new sciences can have profound influences on how we understand older sciences. This insight is similar to Stein's reconceptualization of Newtonian gravitation theory via the technology of dynamical geometry. My discussion illustrates in a concrete way that our understanding of even the factual claims made by an older theory can be undermined by results in newer theories without challenging that theory itself. ;Finally I have argued for a new way of thinking about scientific theories that charts a middle course between the syntactic view of theories and the semantic conception of theories. I argue that such a new way of thinking is required if we are to account responsibly for scientific practice and the way that science gives us insight into the way the world works---if that is we are to practice philosophy of science

We investigate the relationship between two approaches to modeling physical systems. On the first approach, simplifying assumptions are made about the level of detail we choose to represent in a computational simulation with an eye toward tractability. On the second approach simpler, analogue physical systems are considered that have more or less well-defined connections to systems of interest that are themselves too difficult to probe experimentally. Our interest here is in the connections between the artifacts of modeling that appear in these two approaches. We begin by outlining an important respect in which the two are essentially dissimilar and then propose a method whereby overcoming that dissimilarity by hand results in usefully analogous behavior. We claim that progress can be made if we think of artifacts as clues to the projectible predicates proper to the models themselves. Our degree of control over the connection between interesting analogue physical systems and their targets arises from determining the projectible predicates in the analogue system through a combination of theory and experiment. To obtain a similar degree of control over the connection between large-scale, distributed simulations of complex systems and their targets we must similarly determine the projectible predicates of the simulations themselves. In general theory will be too intractable to be of use, and so we advocate an experimental program for determining these predicates. the object of the natural history which I propose is...to give light to the discovery of causes and supply a suckling philosophy with its first food . Francis Bacon, The Great Instauration.

Two views of scientific theories dominated the philosophy of science during the twentieth century, the syntactic view of the logical empiricists and the semantic view of their successors. I show that neither view is adequate to provide a proper understanding of the connections that exist between theories at different times. I outline a new approach, a hybrid of the two, that provides the right structural connection between earlier and later theories, and that takes due account of the importance of the mathematical models of a theory and of the various distinct formulations that pick out these models.

I focus on the stochastic gravity program, a program that conceptualizes spacetime as the hydrodynamic limit of the correlation hierarchy of an underlying quantum theory, that is, a theory of the microscopic theory of gravity. This approach is relatively obscure, and so I begin by outlining the stochastic gravity program in enough detail to make clear the basic sense in which, on this approach, spacetime emerges from more fundamental physical structures. The theory, insofar as it is a univocal theory, is quite clear in its basic features, and so issues of philosophical interpretation can be readily isolated.The most obvious reason to investigate the theory as a model for the emergence of spacetime structure is how close it is to the stage at which the behavior that we recognize as spacetime actually emerges from the micro gravitational system. Approaches that begin with fully quantum gravity treat a system that is conceptually quite far removed from the stage at which emergence is relevant. The stochastic approach however begins by identifying the point at which spacetime emerges as a phenomena of interest.I begin with an analysis of the emergence question generally and ask how best we should understand it, especially from the point of view of thinking of spacetime as emergent. A nice feature of the stochastic program is how clear the question of emergence is on this approach. In part this is because of its similarity by design to the kinetic theory of gases and solid state physics. And so many of the analyses of the emergence of macroscopic variables in the thermodynamic limit can be repurposed to understand how an apparently continuous metrical space emerges from the behavior of a non-spatial system.A serious interpretive problem looms however. The problem is that there is no clear connection between features of the kinetic theory of gravity, as a quantum theory, and any final theory of gravity. In the third part of the paper I will argue that as far as questions of emergence are concerned, we need not begin with a final, underlying theory, and I attempt to identify general issues connected to the emergence of spacetime that can be addressed in isolation from our certainty about that final theory. I will argue that this is a common way in which we treat our other, after all, provisional theories. We begin with the theories we have and ask about their implications without assuming that they are final theories, and yet also without explicitly downplaying the significance of the results we derive. Moreover I will attempt to show that, whatever character a final theory of micro gravity has, spacetime as an emergent structure in that theory is likely to be similar in important respects to the way it manifests in the stochastic gravity program. Briefly this is precisely because of the metaphysical neutrality of the kinetic theory. I will expand, in this section, on the nature of the emergence of the spacetime structure in the context of the stochastic gravity program and explain how the emergence is tied not to the particular model of interactions appealed to, but rather to the generic features of quantum fields with correlated fluctuations at all orders

I reappraise in detail Hertz's cathode ray experiments. I show that, contrary to Buchwald 's evaluation, the core experiment establishing the electrostatic properties of the rays was successfully replicated by Perrin and Thomson. Buchwald 's discussion of 'current purification' is shown to be a red herring. My investigation of the origin of Buchwald 's misinterpretation of this episode reveals that he was led astray by a focus on what Hertz 'could do'-his experimental resources. I argue that one should focus instead on what Hertz wanted to achieve-his experimental goals. Focusing on these goals, I find that his explicit and implicit requirements for a successful investigation of the rays' properties are met by Perrin and Thomson. Thus, even by Hertz's standards, they did indeed replicate his experiment

I argue that the key principle of microgravity is what I have called elsewhere the Lorentzian strategy. This strategy may be seen as either a reverse-engineering approach or a descent with modification approach, but however one sees if the method works neither by attempting to propound a theory that is the quantum version of either an extant or generalized gravitation theory nor by attempting to propound a theory that is the final version of quantum mechanics and finding gravity within it. Instead the method works by beginning with what we are pretty sure is a good approximation to the low-energy limit of whatever the real microprocesses are that generate what we experience as gravitation. This method is powerful, fruitful, and not committed to principles for which we have, as yet, only scant evidence; the method begins with what we do know and teases out what we can know next. The principle is methodological, not ontological

Since the fundamental challenge that I laid at the doorstep of the pluralists was to defend, with nonderivative models, a strong notion of genic cause, it is fatal that Waters has failed to meet that challenge. Waters agrees with me that there is only a single cause operating in these models, but he argues for a notion of causal ‘parsing’ to sustain the viability of some form of pluralism. Waters and his colleagues have some very interesting and important ideas about the sciences, involving pluralism and parsing or partitioning causes, but they are ideas in search of an example. He thinks he has found an example in the case of hierarchical and genic selection. I think he has not.

Philosophers of physics should be more attentive to the role energy conditions play in General Relativity. I review the changing status of energy conditions for quantum fields-presently there are no singularity theorems for semiclassical General Relativity. So we must reevaluate how we understand the relationship between General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and singularities. Moreover, on our present understanding of what it is to be a physically reasonable field, the standard energy conditions are violated classically. Thus the singularity theorems are unavailable for classical General Relativity. Our understanding of singularities in General Relativity turns on delicate issues of what it is to be a matter field-issues distinct from the content of the theory