Sebastian De Haro

We take supersymmetry in the Seiberg–Witten theory as a case study of the uses of (super)symmetry arguments in studying the ontology of four-dimensional interacting quantum field theories. Together with a double expansion, supersymmetry is a via media that helps to bridge the gap between the ontologies of an exact quantum field theory and its semi-classical limit. We discuss a class of states that exist at any value of the coupling, and whose properties such as mass, electric and magnetic charges, and spin quantum numbers can be precisely characterised at low energies. The low-energy theory is best presented as a one-dimensional complex manifold, equipped with metric and other structures: namely, the space of low-energy vacua, covered by three open regions that are interpreted as macroscopic phases. We discuss two cases of emergence: the emergence of the low-energy regime and the emergence between models at low energies, thereby highlighting the significance of the topology of the space of vacua for such cases of emergence.

Dualities offer new possibilities for relating fundamentality and emergence. In particular, as this chapter aims to show, it may happen that the relations of fundamentality and emergence between dual theories are inverted. In other words, the direction of emergence typically found in these cases is opposite to the direction of emergence followed in the standard accounts: that is, while the standard emergence direction is that of decreasing fundamentality—in that there is emergence of less fundamental, high-level entities, out of more fundamental, low-level entities—in these cases of duality, on the contrary, a more fundamental entity can emerge out of a less fundamental one. In fact, this possibility can be traced back to the existence of different classical limits in quantum field theories and string theories.

Technological understanding is not a singular concept but varies depending on the context. Building on De Jong and De Haro’s (2025) notion of technological understanding as the ability to realise an aim by using a technological artefact, this paper further refines the concept as an ability that varies by context and degree. We extend its original specification for a design context by introducing two additional contexts: operation and innovation. Each context represents a distinct way of realising an aim through technology, resulting in three types (specifications) of technological understanding. To further clarify the nature of technological understanding, we propose an assessment framework based on counterfactual reasoning. Each type of understanding is associated with the ability to answer a specific set of what-if questions, addressing changes in an artefact’s structure, performance, or appropriateness. Explicitly distinguishing these different types helps to focus efforts to improve technological understanding, clarifies the epistemic requirements for different forms of engagement with technology, and promotes a pluralistic perspective on expertise.

In this paper I review the problematic relationship between science and philosophy; in particular, I will address the question of whether science needs philosophy, and I will offer some positive perspectives that should be helpful in developing a synergetic relationship between the two. I will review three lines of reasoning often employed in arguing that philosophy is useless for science: philosophy’s death diagnosis ; the historic-agnostic argument/challenge “show me examples where philosophy has been useful for science, for I don’t know of any”; the division of property argument. These arguments will be countered with three contentions to the effect that the natural sciences need philosophy. I will: point to the fallacy of anti-philosophicalism and examine the role of paradigms and presuppositions ; point out why the historical argument fails ; briefly sketch some domains of intersection of science and philosophy and how the two can have mutual synergy. I will conclude with some implications of this synergetic relationship between science and philosophy for the liberal arts and sciences.

This essay, written on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Mariano Artigas’s death, examines Artigas’s engagement with analytic philosophy in his philosophy of science. I argue that, overall, Artigas’s project in the philosophy of science is one of—using his own metaphor—‘building bridges’ between distinct areas of knowledge. After reviewing the function of Artigas’s philosophy of science as a bridge between science and philosophy, I analyse how he moved from classical to analytic philosophy. I then assess the extent to which Artigas’s work conforms to reasonable analytic standards of clarity and precision, which can be expected from work in the philosophy of science. I conclude that, while Artigas’s dedication and production were admirable, his work remains essentially unfinished, thus inviting further research that should develop and clarify his conception of science, of its aims, its methods, progress, and of how science leads to knowledge. I attempt to assess Artigas’s philosophy of science from an objective and detached perspective. Thus the essay should be of interest to both scholars in the philosophy of science, as well as to those generally interested in Artigas-scholarship.

Although several accounts of scientific understanding exist, the concept of understanding in relation to technology remains underexplored. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a philosophical account of technological understanding—the type of understanding that is required for and reflected by successfully designing and using technological artefacts. We develop this notion by building on the concept of scientific understanding. Drawing on parallels between science and technology, and specifically between scientific theories and technological artefacts, we extend the idea of scientific understanding into the realm of technology. We argue that, just as scientific understanding involves the ability to explain a phenomenon using a theory, technological understanding involves the ability to use a technological artefact to realise a practical aim. Technological understanding can thus be considered a specific application of knowledge: it encompasses the cognitive skill of recognising how a practical aim can be achieved by using a technological artefact. In a context of design, this general notion of technological understanding is specified as the ability to design an artefact that, by producing a phenomenon through its physical structure, achieves the intended aim. We illustrate our concept of technological understanding through two running examples: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and superconducting quantum computers. Our account highlights the epistemic dimension of engaging with technology and, by allowing for context-dependent specifications, provides guidance for testing and improving technological understanding in specific contexts.

I conceptualise the role of dualities in quantum gravity, in terms of their functions for theory construction. I distinguish between two functions of duality in physical practice: namely, discovering and describing ‘equivalent physics’, versus suggesting ‘new physics’. I dub these the ‘theoretical’ versus the ‘heuristic’ functions of dualities. The distinction seems to have gone largely unnoticed in the philosophical literature: and it exists both for dualities, and for the more general relation of theoretical equivalence. The paper develops the heuristic function of dualities: illustrating how they can be used, if one has any luck, to find and formulate new theories. I also point to the different physical commitments about the theories in question that underlie these two functions. I show how a recently developed schema for dualities articulates the differences between the two functions.

In this essay I begin to lay out a conceptual scheme for: analysing dualities as cases of theoretical equivalence; assessing when cases of theoretical equivalence are also cases of physical equivalence. The scheme is applied to gauge/gravity dualities. I expound what I argue to be their contribution to questions about: the nature of spacetime in quantum gravity; broader philosophical and physical discussions of spacetime. - proceed by analysing duality through four contrasts. A duality will be a suitable isomorphism between models: and the four relevant contrasts are as follows: Bare theory: a triple of states, quantities, and dynamics endowed with appropriate structures and symmetries; vs. interpreted theory: which is endowed with, in addition, a suitable pair of interpretative maps. Extendable vs. unextendable theories: which can, respectively cannot, be extended as regards their domains of application. External vs. internal intepretations: which are constructed, respectively, by coupling the theory to another interpreted theory vs. from within the theory itself. Theoretical vs. physical equivalence: which contrasts formal equivalence with the equivalence of fully interpreted theories. I will apply this scheme to answering questions - for gauge/gravity dualities. I will argue that the things that are physically relevant are those that stand in a bijective correspondence under duality: the common core of the two models. I therefore conclude that most of the mathematical and physical structures that we are familiar with, in these models, are largely, though crucially never entirely, not part of that common core. Thus, the interpretation of dualities for theories of quantum gravity compels us to rethink the roles that spacetime, and many other tools in theoretical physics, play in theories of spacetime.

This paper introduces the physics and philosophy of strange metals, which are characterized by unusual electrical and thermal properties that deviate from conventional metallic behaviour. The anomalous strange-metal behaviour discussed here appears in the normal state of a copper-oxide high-temperature superconductor, and it cannot be described using standard condensed-matter physics. Currently, it can only be described through a holographic dual, viz. a four-dimensional black hole in anti-de Sitter spacetime. This paper first introduces the theory of, and specific experiments carried out on, strange metals. Then it discusses a number of philosophical questions that strange metals open up regarding the experimental evidence for holography and its realist interpretation. Strange metals invert the explanatory arrows, in that usual holographic arguments are seen as giving explanations of the bulk quantum-gravity theory from the boundary. By contrast, the aim here is, by using holography, to explain the experimentally discovered and anomalous properties of strange metals.

I begin to develop a framework for emergence in the physical sciences. Namely, I propose to explicate ontological emergence in terms of the notion of ‘novel reference’, and of an account of interpretation as a map from theory to world. I then construe ontological emergence as the “failure of the interpretation to mesh” with an appropriate linkage map between theories. Ontological emergence can obtain between theories that have the same extension but different intensions, and between theories that have both different extensions and intensions. I illustrate the framework in three examples: the emergence of spontaneous magnetisation in a ferromagnet, the emergence of masslessness, and the emergence of space, in specific models of physics. The account explains why ontological emergence is independent of reduction: namely, because emergence is primarily concerned with adequate interpretation, while the sense of reduction that is relevant here is concerned with inter-theoretic relations between uninterpreted theories.

This paper explores the options available to the anti-realist to defend a Quinean empirical under-determination thesis using examples of dualities. I first explicate a version of the empirical under-determination thesis that can be brought to bear on theories of contemporary physics. Then I identify a class of examples of dualities that lead to empirical under-determination. But I argue that the resulting under-determination is benign, and is not a threat to a cautious scientific realism. Thus dualities are not new ammunition for the anti-realist. The paper also shows how the number of possible interpretative options about dualities that have been considered in the literature can be reduced, and suggests a general approach to scientific realism that one may take dualities to favour.

'Holographic' relations between theories have become a main theme in quantum gravity research. These relations entail that a theory without gravity is equivalent to a gravitational theory with an extra spatial dimension. The idea of holography was first proposed in 1993 by Gerard 't Hooft on the basis of his studies of evaporating black holes. Soon afterwards the holographic 'AdS/CFT' duality was introduced, which since has been heavily studied in the string theory community and beyond. Recently, Erik Verlinde has proposed that even Newton's law of gravitation can be related holographically to the thermodynamics of information on screens. We discuss inter-theoretical relations in these scenarios: what is the status of the holographic relation in them and in what sense is gravity, or spacetime, emergent?

This monograph discusses dualities in physics: what dualities are, their main examples—from quantum mechanics and electrodynamics to statistical mechanics, quantum field theory and string theory—and the philosophical questions that they raise. Part I first conceptualises dualities and discusses their main roles and themes, including how they are related to familiar notions like symmetry and interpretation. It also discusses the main simple examples of dualities: position-momentum, wave-particle, electric-magnetic and Kramers-Wannier dualities. Part II discusses advanced examples and their inter-relations: particle-soliton dualities, electric-magnetic dualities in quantum field theories, dualities in string theory, and gauge-gravity duality. This Part ends with discussions of the hole argument, and how string theory counts the microstates of a black hole. Part III is an in-depth discussion of general philosophical issues on which dualities bear: theoretical equivalence (two theories ‘saying the same thing, in different words’), scientific realism and the under-determination of theories by data, theory succession and the M-theory programme, explanation and scientific understanding. It proposes a view of scientific theories that it dubs the geometric view of theories. The book’s treatment of the examples is at the advanced undergraduate and graduate level, starting from elementary and progressing to more advanced examples. The discussions of philosophical topics, such as referential semantics, theoretical equivalence, scientific realism and scientific understanding, are both self-contained and in-depth. Thus the book is aimed at students and researchers with an interest in the physical examples and philosophical questions about dualities, and also in how physics and philosophy can fruitfully interact with each other.

Theoretical equivalence and duality are two closely related notions: but their interconnection has so far not been well understood. In this paper I explicate the contribution of a recent schema for duality to discussions of theoretical equivalence. I argue that duality suggests a construal of theoretical equivalence in the physical sciences. The construal is in terms of the isomorphism of models, as defined by the schema. This construal gives interpretative constraints that should be useful for discussions of theoretical equivalence more generally. I illustrate the construal in various formulations of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory.

While the relation between visualization and scientific understanding has been a topic of long-standing discussion, recent developments in physics have pushed the boundaries of this debate to new and still unexplored realms. For it is claimed that, in certain theories of quantum gravity, spacetime ‘disappears’: and this suggests that one may have sensible physical theories in which spacetime is completely absent. This makes the philosophical question whether such theories are intelligible, even more pressing. And if such theories are intelligible, the question then is how they manage to do so. In this paper, we adapt the contextual theory of scientific understanding, developed by one of us, to fit the novel challenges posed by physical theories without spacetime. We construe understanding as a matter of skill rather than just knowledge. The appeal is thus to understanding, rather than explanation, because we will be concerned with the tools that scientists have at their disposal for understanding these theories. Our central thesis is that such physical theories can provide scientific understanding, and that such understanding does not require spacetimes of any sort. Our argument consists of four consecutive steps: (a) We argue, from the general theory of scientific understanding, that although visualization is an oft-used tool for understanding, it is not a necessary condition for it; (b) we criticise certain metaphysical preconceptions which can stand in the way of recognising how intelligibility without spacetime can be had; (c) we catalogue tools for rendering theories without a spacetime intelligible; and (d) we give examples of cases in which understanding is attained without a spacetime, and explain what kind of understanding these examples provide.

The Birth of String Theory by Cappelli et al. tells the story of the beginnings of string theory and of the evolutionary process it has undergone from its origins in S-matrix theory to its current status as a candidate unification theory. The book is intended for an audience of students and researchers in physics, as well as historians and philosophers of science with some background in quantum field theory.In the 50s and early 60s, theoretical particle physics focused on formulating a theory to explain the strong interactions. Due to issues with the application of perturbative quantum field theory to the strong interactions, theoretical particle physicists shifted their attention to Heisenberg’s ‘S-matrix’ theory, which focused solely on observable quantities. This endeavour led in 1968 to the breakthrough of the famous ‘Veneziano amplitude’, which along with the Dolen–Horn–Schmid duality between the s- and the t-channels led to the dual resonance model. Following Ve..

In this paper we have two aims: first, to draw attention to the close connexion between interpretation and scientific understanding; second, to give a detailed account of how theories without a spacetime can be interpreted, and so of how they can be understood. In order to do so, we of course need an account of what is meant by a theory ‘without a spacetime’: which we also provide in this paper. We describe three tools, used by physicists, aimed at constructing interpretations which are adequate for the goal of understanding. We analyse examples from high-energy physics illustrating how physicists use these tools to construct interpretations and thereby attain understanding. The examples are: the ’t Hooft approximation of gauge theories, random matrix models, causal sets, loop quantum gravity, and group field theory.

I examine the relationship between \\)-dimensional Poincaré metrics and d-dimensional conformal manifolds, from both mathematical and physical perspectives. The results have a bearing on several conceptual issues relating to asymptotic symmetries in general relativity and in gauge–gravity duality, as follows: I draw from the remarkable work by Fefferman and Graham on conformal geometry, in order to prove two propositions and a theorem that characterise which classes of diffeomorphisms qualify as gravity-invisible. I define natural notions of gravity-invisibility that apply to the diffeomorphisms of Poincaré metrics in any dimension. I apply the notions of invisibility, developed in, to gauge–gravity dualities: which, roughly, relate Poincaré metrics in \ dimensions to QFTs in d dimensions. I contrast QFT-visible versus QFT-invisible diffeomorphisms: those gravity diffeomorphisms that can, respectively cannot, be seen from the QFT. The QFT-invisible diffeomorphisms are the ones which are relevant to the hole argument in Einstein spaces. The results on dualities are surprising, because the class of QFT-visible diffeomorphisms is larger than expected, and the class of QFT-invisible ones is smaller than expected, or usually believed, i.e. larger than the PBH diffeomorphisms in Imbimbo et al. :1129, 2000, Eq. 2.6). I also give a general derivation of the asymptotic conformal Killing equation, which has not appeared in the literature before.

We make two points about dualities in string theory. The first point is that the conception of duality, which we will discuss, meshes with two dual theories being ‘gauge related’ in the general philosophical sense of being physically equivalent. The second point is a result about gauge/gravity duality that shows its relation to gauge symmetries to be subtler than one might expect: each of a certain class of gauge symmetries in the gravity theory, that is, diffeomorphisms, is related to a position-dependent symmetry of the gauge theory.

I conceptualise the role of dualities in quantum gravity, in terms of their functions for theory construction. I distinguish between two functions of duality in physical practice: namely, discovering and describing ‘equivalent physics’, versus suggesting ‘new physics’. I dub these the ‘theoretical’ versus the ‘heuristic’ functions of dualities. The distinction seems to have gone largely unnoticed in the philosophical literature: and it exists both for dualities, and for the more general relation of theoretical equivalence. The paper develops the heuristic function of dualities: illustrating how they can be used, if one has any luck, to find and formulate new theories. I also point to the different physical commitments about the theories in question that underlie these two functions. I show how a recently developed schema for dualities articulates the differences between the two functions.

Recent critiques of the semantic conception of scientific theories suggest that a theory is not best formulated as a collection of models satisfying some set of kinematical or dynamical conditions. Thus it has been argued that additional structure on the set of models is required. Furthermore, there are calls for developing a ‘theory of theories’, where what was formerly a ‘theory’ is seen as a ‘model’ within a larger theoretical structure. This paper makes a two-pronged proposal for the “shape” that physical theories should take, based on recent insights on dualities and quasi-dualities in physics. First, I develop a geometric view of theories, according to which a physical theory is a set of models with topological and geometric structure on it. This general view is briefly illustrated in an example from quantum cosmology. Second, I make a more specific proposal for a natural structure that can encompass various ‘theories’ as its models, with topological and algebraic-geometric structure on them. I call the latter more specific structure a ‘model bundle’, where the models are in the fibres and there is a moduli space in the base. I illustrate my second proposal in an example from quantum field theory. This view highlights the important role of quasi-dualities as local transition functions between fibres; dualities are recovered as global transition functions when the bundle is trivial. I discuss some philosophical issues that this geometric view of physical theories opens up, such as its realist interpretation.

Although several accounts of scientific understanding exist, the concept of understanding in relation to technology remains underexplored. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a philosophical account of technological understanding: the type of understanding that is required for and reflected by successfully designing and using technological artefacts. We develop this notion by building on the concept of scientific understanding. Drawing on parallels between science and technology, and specifically between scientific theories and technological artefacts, we extend the idea of scientific understanding into the realm of technology. We argue that, just as scientific understanding involves the ability to explain a phenomenon using a theory, technological understanding involves the ability to use a technological artefact to realise a practical aim. Both theories and artefacts are tools, and using them successfully requires the cognitive skill of understanding. Technological understanding is thus conceived as the ability to recognise how a practical aim can be achieved by using a technological artefact. In a context of design, this general notion of technological understanding is specified as the ability to design an artefact that, by producing a phenomenon through its physical structure, achieves the intended aim. By analogy with De Regt’s criterion of the intelligibility of theories, we give, as a precondition for technological understanding, a criterion for the intelligibility of a technological artefact. We illustrate our concept of technological understanding through two running examples: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and superconducting quantum computers. Our account highlights the epistemic dimension of engaging with technology and, by allowing for context-dependent specifications, provides guidance for testing and improving technological understanding in specific contexts.