So, for those are view,
who have been here for the first two talks.
This talking not mentioned proteins all. And this one is
much more about. The follows of your scients. Also,
there will be some scients in it. But given that
the oudience may not all be for last offers, if there's some,
and I'm going be talking about two other full sofacle,
frameworks for understanding last of science,
if there's something that is un clear
Because I'm in my experts blind spot about philosophy,
raise your hand and I will try to explain it.
So that we since we all have different arenas of expertise,
it's never sure how far for one's, ex,
one's a sumptions can be extended.
So you do want to start to just for a moment in
an little other biographical statement that this issue of last for me, came up in part.
As many of my philosophical, musings and wonderings do.
When the established or general philosophical view about something,
doesn't seem to really fit, very well,
with the Observations and Experiences, I'm having collaborating with Scientist.
So there's something that was an quite right about this nation scientific law are love nature,
that just seem to be missing something important about the kinds of knowledge that the generesis and noroscientists,
nevolutionary by olidges that I was talking with an working with doing.
They seem to be coming up with some really good inside
for bits of knowledge, that were supported by the evidence.
And they seem to explain a lot about nature,
they seem to be able to that is predictings and to
actually latters in a vehen and energy, some important call.
So they seem to be getting it something really important.
And yet the filless sufficle characterization of what they were doing
didn't seem to fit, very well.
And that was what in prompted me to jump into this tarpect,
which has been around of course, since aero starter.
So What I want to do today,
so limit just give it the plans,
and I didn't do a plans like,
it's talk a little bit about the character of the problem of what,
counts as are scientific law, how that applies or fails to opply to the different sciences.
And engage in a little bit of more fine green,
in analysis, of three different positions on last mindbing one,
which are explained to to mind mind more and in more detail than the other two.
And accounts of last by Mark Lang and by Jim Widwork,
and to try the teaser just exactly what the differences are,
when all three positions, our peeling to this something,
that looks like the same concept,
at least the same word, in explaining,
what makes something a law.
So, it's going to be some needy greaty pholosophy.
What we going to start with pretty pictures.
So. Here we have are baby monkey. And some you
raining to 35 powder. And the questioners,
what's the difference between these two on to logically, right?
And as I did say some about last night,
We can agree that they're both made up of,
whatever, we think the fundamental fundamental physical stuff is.
Right, they have different compositions. But they're about
all made up of matter. Or physical material,
whatever the phundamental particles are, all use Adams, even
they why know there's things that are smaller and more find a metals the nadams.
Snay we there fields, maybe there, whatever they are.
But whatever we think natures made up,
but of the Universals made up,
but we think all complex things are made up of the
same basic material in different configurations
One questionals, one answer to this is,
what they're both made up of matter.
I of physical stuff. But it's important to recking nice
that everything that is buyal logical is infect physical.
But not everything that's physical is buyallogical. So there's some important distinctions
between the physical has in a kind of convoluted way come to say.
There's something different about the physical asities as as as as
as as as as as as as as it appears in
fundamental physical properties and the physical has it appears
in buyal logical properties
Or in social probablys, or in congnited properties. It's all physical,
but there's some really important differences that are up
the assif you're doing the science of those objects,
but has been in some sense less than well recognized by the fillas self-accord views.
So until logically you might say there alume compositionally made up
that the same fundamental particles, parts of matter or physics, physical matter.
But the question is, ups, two slide.
Normically, what's the different? So normically is the view,
that that there are loss
of nature
Or last of science, that scientists set up to discover, newtons last of motion.
I einsteins last of elector magnetists. Mendels last of segregation,
will talk about that when in the minute. That there are last of segregation,
we talk about that when in the minute,
that there are last of regular, regularities,
they are a things that maybe Governor are world.
And if tcientists, and newton was really proud of the fact that his last,
seem to unifly, äh, abobservations about terrestrial and celestrial,
material, he had last at fit a huge,
why space, vernamen an infact,
they were universal.
If it the whole universe,
at least heat
And this became in some ways the new turning framework is
the one in which for last vers of science have ever since taken as a
kind of paradise of case of good science even know
we have going be on newton even though that picture has gotten ammanded,
you know, getting these universal lasts that that is like, and you get your
name on them, right, that's pretty great.
And that's what signed to seem to aim to do and
when you help such last, they explain a huge white range of white phänomena.
So they're very convenient as well. But infact,
Maniful has version, especially since the 1950s when Jack Smart, started,
it spect made it explicit, claim, that well,
there are are lots in physics, there are no lots in biolity.
So well, there are are are lots,
sign typic lots, or a lots of nature,
that apply to your rainy im 235,
there are are lots that apply to the behavior of the Baby Monkey.
So, the question arrises, why I'd there lots,
are there really lots of our biology and if not why not,
and if yes, why?
And that's the kind of motivation for this talk today
So are there are lots in Biology. The Framework that,
I think, can temporary for lots be still honors.
And has gone beyond. It's one that the logical imperioses
developed. Carnup, hempel, right? That family your
names to the folaceivers in the Group in the Group.
That the logical imperiosist account, was a strategy of doing for lots,
we were you look at the practices of scients.
And you develop the logical reconstruction of the rationality of explanation Prediction,
Confirmation, theory change, theory,
theory relations, all of those things,
became represent it in first or to predict at the logic,
as a way of understanding,
what making clear and explicit the practices and their releasoning in science,
which is again conducted by human being,
to have all search of complicated ways in which they reason.
Okay, so the philosophical conmotivation was out improview on one
we still hold, core to do influence für die sciences,
making things explicit making them clear.
And so this framework was one that made as it was making
rational reconstructions of in first story predicted logic of scientip the
practice took on the job, also exploketing what are lowers.
Okay, what was im Newtonslaw, what was ein scienceler?
What is a lower? And there there that that become
the standard of what a strict law of science is for a last first to consider.
And so the representation here is just in more,
you can just says, for all ex it access appea than access a cue right.
And that generalization, that's means for all things,
that sad as fy I'm alpe, our in Entity.
It actually for all things in all space in time.
I referee you to hemples raven in Paradox.
So now when. But if all für all things in
the Universe, if they have this property, then
they will have that property. If they have mass, then
they will a bay newtons last emotion. And this general,
general view, general description of nature will be a law,
if in only F, it's said,
svice a certain number of other properties.
And so what makes it a law
That it was logically content namely at hand to have a periple content
have to be about our world and not just about melth
matics not just about logic right not too for new matter
what are world with like science studies are world.
And so it had to be logically content. It had
to be universal, cover are all space in time,
not local. It had to be true with if it's
true in Universal beans it's acception listen.
There's a new exception
There had to be something also about it, for a
reason that will be come apparent in the next light.
It had to be naturally necessary not just accidentally true.
So it was thought that, there were some university two generalizations,
that were somehow necessary to aren R-World are universe.
And there were all there say just happened to course.
And I turn unexemple that the minute.
And on the strict definition of what a law is,
that we enherited from bilatical empires is, biality,
the generals, that generalizations that biology, discovers,
art laws.
Okay. So this is we are the problem with
first characterize
So why do they have to be necessary,
that seemed an additional claim beside just that you dot all the truth
that argumentaby truth from now of and forever and freeverywhere.
And that was the way in which for last offers attempt to two characterize.
They needed to characterize, what this difference was between just
being exitentially universal through and being necessarily universal literal.
And they did that buy a series of thought experiments or
examples to proud to
In vogue your intuitions is.
I think the way that it's use of the presented.
And so there was a different with we thing that you
necessarily lowers or content in accidents, just happened to be true.
And there's so saying lars or things like the Uranium, bright.
That all your raining spears or less and one one mile in diamodor.
Is actually necessarily true, because it's an unstable element and
if you put it that much of it together, right?
It will exvote. Okay. So you can't have it
. It want you can't have anything that big.
I not going to happen. But it may also be
the case and true universaly that all the goals fears in
are are goals spears in all goals fears are are less
than one mile
in Diamodor
And that could well be true, because it just mind
have happened that in the evolution of the stars,
which is where all the elements got made.
There just was an enough gold made,
that it could be putting to as fear of that size.
Okay. I don't know what it that's tour and out.
But for last first, didn't worry about that.
Okay. But let's say, it the exhype pothosists,
there is into enough gold, and there for,
this is true, it's true for all times,
or not make an any more gold that's it.
And there was a sense that there are something really different.
And there is seem very similar the
both elements
One's the truth about the one sim really necessary,
the other seem to just be am your accident.
That's what this distinction is trying the capture, that some
truths are there because they have to be that way.
And other, so just, you know,
cause things have turned out that way,
but they could have well been other wise.
So this necessary versus content necessary lovers is content and accident,
is the kind of division that separated out laws from things,
that might be true, but not worked laws.
So it also a course, insight I was supply to
scientifical us. So newton second love motion,
epicals MA
Was taken to be a law, government all things and
all space time. And again, we know,
you a magine from moment, we're back in the 70 century.
So don't get me the effect, we move to had be unders.
But for the purposes of the fill sofacle point,
it's so fices. It maybe in fact the case,
they are now, fis it lars, a physics,
but let's said, that are side, okay.
But if there are a laws, and there are in Associate,
they said, as why those does it or rata,
why universally true, exception, this continent, logically continued,
they discribed are world, they could be in different.
And necessary, then newton sources are so post to be necessary.
And here is the other one of the other famous
examples of things that really what true.
Mort Lars, but could be true. And that is
all the coins in Nows in Goodmans Pragued are carper.
Okay. You can see, how a family that fact is.
But it maybe true for all space in time that all
the quins in Goodmans Parkett,
we're made of carper
And you don't say, but that's not a lot of
science. Okay, so we need something besides to through
them general and exception us, we need necessity.
Okay, so those things be right,
it seems right that we should carb up the last space.
So that it exexcluses these kinds of throughs, he's excited anal throughs,
but goal than, but queens in our packet.
But it's also then, let's turned your how this might,
also devide up the territory, in what are sometimes called,
the special sciences, nein,
nee,
that there are fundamental physics and then everything out spaceally
Zweite Verno für Sex, switch, gets at that the laws.
And then everything else from non-findomel of physics,
through Chemistry and by ology and nurrow science and psychology and egynamics and sociology and whatever political science.
So there's eas other sciences and the question is, okay,
if we agree that newtons laws and maybe other other exemplars in physics,
fundamental physics, that seem to have these properties,
what about all the other things that sight scientists discovered about our universe.
And even some of them, they are the double of
those laws. Okay, but we don't care so
much about that
So mendoes law, first love, segregation,
was about how insectually reproducing organizers, which have two crowmasons,
with Jeans, I'm each crowmasons.
And when the right you get have your deans from your
mom and have your jeans from your dead.
And that when you, and where,
any sexually reproducing organizers, then producers, spirmer ex,
right to product the next generation organisms.
The crowmason on the vides and divides and have
and have in any one of these
Products, these spirmer egg, gammits,
it has a 50-50 chance of having the Gene from
your mother side or the Gene from your father side.
So it just say that the segregation when they devide
when they don't split to make Gammits, Spermin egg,
are fair,
they're 50-50. And this was an important discovering that mandal made.
And called we call it a law. But in fact
, we know their exceptions to it.
We know that they are things like segregation discoveration
Bialogical enbiochemical processes, that skue the probability, right,
of the production of Gamiens, in favor of one set of jeans over another.
And you can see how that might be evolutionarily a good strategy,
right, for a jean, if you,
if the game is to get the jeans in the next generation,
right, taking over, the all of the Gam,
all of those spirim make productions,
going to give you a big head start,
as a post only getting have of them right.
So, you can see how that might be evolutionarily successful,
but there are many a ways of suppressing that,
cause it's successful for all of them right.
But anyone that take sovere with the segregation distortion is
going to run into other problems in adapt in this.
So, this law in Biology doesn't meet the strict standard,
because it's not universal it has exceptions.
So, this raises, apparsel. The puzzle is why
? What is it about the that the that truths of
biology that make them so different and literators of physics?
And so then we does not me at mat,
that they're art differences.
I think it's important to record
nices differences
But housedn't we discribe them. Currently. The current that
account on after of strict last. At least for
my perspective, doesn't do a very the joble that.
And the reason it doesn't do a good joble that,
is that it putts the lockmentals last of segregation in the
absolute saying category as goodments, the cooins in goodments parket.
And I think we know more,
when we know Mendels last that we do,
when we know about goodments packets, contents.
But we don't have anyother category to discribe it other than
accidental and contention
Now, the something last everything have tried to explained.
What is is about by a logical last,
that makes them about bialogical phänomenal that makes the true is we
can learn about om failed to meet the strict standard of lawfulness.
So what is it? Why does knowledge a biological systems
failed a feder? And that's a important question.
And so and John Bady developed an account, he call
the evolutionary, contengency thesis. And what he said,
was that quote to say that bialogical generalizations are evolutionary contengent namely,
what we discribe, when these scribed the evolved population organisms of life on this planet.
Let's not do excellent biology, but life on this planet,
right, is we do scribe,
what the relations are that true fully characterize that behavior the state changes,
if you like the production of Germanys, right,
the population properties, whatever we are looking and embiology.
And those are there discribing, what biological fonamena,
a car, just like, the discriptions of physics,
discribes, what physical phynamena a car in a Universe.
I calaxies and Adams and Sabbatomic particles. So the evolutionary
can tengency these assells that say that biological generalizations are evolutionary contentience,
is just say that they are not last of nature,
they do not express any natural accessory, they maybe true,
but nothing an natural accessortates are true,
which is to just to repeat,
they don't mean district.
Definition of what a lieus, that we saw, okay.
But why don't they do that? Well,
bady was reflecting on some important discoveries in evolutionary biology.
Namily, once that especially Stephen J. Good here out to
herout to herold did in his book, you for life.
Quick reference, if you don't know the movie wonderful life,
Christmas is coming up, it's the standard Christmas movie,
we are what five times a day in the United States with Jimmy Stewart.
And it's the Angels and it's wonderful.
Okay. It's wonderful, the white or wonderful life.
But the wonderful life story has a biological Analog.
And that is Stephen J. Good. Also road a book
on the bird is shale. And the bird is shale
is in our crowd of rocks in british columbian canada,
in which a number of fossils were found that had never been
seen before
And these faciles, were extremery. Okay. So in fact,
they represented, body forms, that were developed, evolved,
very in the cambrian explosion. And after the cambrian explosion,
were you get this huge diversity of life exploding allow with the planet,
filling new, adaptive natures, egal logical natures,
a deapting a new and different ways and had also to different shapes encizes.
Then have to the cambrian explosion came, the cambrian extinction event.
Where are huge percentage of these diversity was just completely going
And what was left, we're only a few or body informs.
I kind of like arts. And all die Organismen,
that are living now. But in that time,
there were these forms that were so does are.
This one, this is any job for up,
but it's also casually known as who lose sergenia.
Because it looks like you would holuse enated.
And there is the faster love it. And a nationally,
because it was so different an anything living that we know today.
They regularly that the faser should be walking on those spikey likes.
But with more research in more discoveries in the fasersale record,
they discovered that was round that actually walk that those that
all weekle links in the spikes came up on top.
And as is in the year drying of what it
would look like it was not just of assile.
So there is nothing like that. There is nothing that
has that basic form in the living organisms, we have now.
And so what good concludes from this,
are so suggest this tous is about evolution is that,
as evolution goals, right, there is all these,
we can explain, what's going on through adaptation,
natural selection,
right,
sometimes through draft in other kinds of forces
But that there are relative to that trojectory through,
if you like more four space, that's just talk about body
form, that trojectory through more four space,
which you can explain by abolution.
There are they things reality to that that our excidence.
Things like medias, hitting that earth, right? Things like,
folgt Valcanos, ob skurry in the light from the sign, right?
That change right that in tire story. And he that,
just like the movie if you know the movie,
if you roll the tape back, right,
if you roll the video tape back,
and started again
From where you were, what you get it the end
of the days are plately different story.
Because there's all these chance events, like the dynersers going extinct, they came brew explosion
explosion gets when how down to just a very few number body forms,
and the trajectory goes from there, but it could have been different.
And in that sense, that's the evolutionary content say,
what we have now, could a very well been different.
And in fact, probably will be different in the future,
and the last that just scribe the behavior of those systems,
is content on which systems are around.
And that it's self looks not
very necessary
Even if the warse governing them, or ness,
or dness a saying, right,
if it's has higher fitness and it will, you know,
with a probibility, happy more likely to survive,
but that the actual forms themselves are night.
So the problem has are the bailey point in out that there
was is kind of contentency with is agree. Charakters to can evolved organizem,
this two bucks framework, that we enhearded from the logical and perioses,
doesn't give us enough space, to say,
what is important about the relationship between the lars of Final Menelphysic und die Truthen,
Generalizationen oder Lands, die all die anderen Scientific-Enterprises haben.
Es gibt nicht die Koins in Goodman's Parkett.
Und ich denke, sie sind sehr conceptually too recognize that.
Und so dieses too bugs framework. Ich bin beliebt und
mag so lot of sense given the logical emperiosis mathedology,
which was a really important one it told this a lot about how science works stright,
model things in terms of logic first or your predicted logical relationships,
we learned a light.
Well, the stuff we didn't doesn't
get into that kind of representation
It's kind of like a shick figure, representation of a person, right?
You get something you get the lems and will round head.
But you don't get a lot of the other features about.
So I thought a lotical project,
which lives on and does still deliver important insides about science.
There were things that, I think,
it couldn't really capture on in this kind of simple representation.
And effect, this language of necessaring content,
comes right out of logic.
Where it has a very clean,
perfectly cleared economies way of deveiding up propositions
Into those, that are true by virtual of their form,
that's a sayerally, this sintech, let's just sintech,
two by virtual of their form.
And those who's true, their forces, to depend it
on, the signment of two values to their components.
Right. Do you true the tables? You know,
if it's, if A, then A,
you don't have to do it trust table.
But it's a, if A, then B,
you do, to know what it's true.
Okay, that's all, that's going on here.
So this nice diconomy that words so well in this
formal system. Between necessary and content trues was kind of
just broad over whole sale into the natural system,
who how is nature right
The truths we learn a nature well. Okay, were use
and magic to figure that out. Maybe they also follow
the same structure of being naturally necessary or accidentally content.
And this in fact, really doesn't work for it, well.
Okay. At least from my perspective. And my arguments
it fails. Namly, we know that all and larger,
all natural two the first of all,
even by the criteria of the strict last are are logically content,
and they there two depends on our world.
And natural throughs do not, appear to be diconomics.
It doesn't seem, right, to say,
all the coins and goodmans pack at our couple,
has the same Valence,
the same status,
as mendoes loves aggregation
And so we need more places then two boxers.
And so my strategy and I had developed this work on lives in the 1990s.
And today is we're going beyond that by the way.
I'm just going to through some of that.
Is that this didn't see, word there are I asked
myself other other ways to figure out the answer to the question,
are there a last in biology.
Since this one was going to continue to deliver now.
But in a way that I thought was and said,
unfaithful to the kind of range of throughs that human beings
could detect
So I looked first at trying the characterize what strategies we
might adopt to determine whether not there are lots and build biology.
In the first one it. And I just name dom
this they mean that be the perfect dames,
but it was a normative way.
Name you start with the definition of law. Universal exception
less logically continuent necessary. Okay. And then new walk around
the biological corporates and CFNE thing that by a lot,
by olled is have discovered, fit the definition.
Okay. That's how you think you ensure that's that that's
hear you
But there are other ways and other for last evers had
suggested a periodic matic acproach. Okay, maybe definition.
I'm not biggern definitions, definitions seem very raged.
But maybe we know one we seem. Okay.
So we can tell you exactly, but we know on.
Okay, so newtonslow. Okay, we all a great.
That's a lot. Paridic madiclow. Then we just take
that Paradigm or a couple of paradigms and we walk around the biological corpose.
And we see, yes, are anything in biology,
that looks like those Paradigms.
Well, this is a somewhat problem matic strategy.
Right. First of all, not clear we don't a
agree on what the Paradigms are
Now all the things in physics,
that people might think our last would fit the paradigms,
30 years just kind of passes, the buck,
as we say in the US.
It's shifts the problem now, not to what's a lot,
but what's a period igmatic lot?
Okay, with out the endsuring at. Instead, subsure merging,
that question into some kind of, where we all, now. And with there's just agreement,
which I would press zoom, there would be,
it would be very hard to justify, if you going to justify,
why this is a period time and that's not, a period,
you're eat their back in the normative, but camp,
or you going to come join me in the third bucks, which is suggest is the way to do.
I said mir, maybe that's just needer
these are the right way that look at the problem.
Maybe, what we should do is take a pragmatic approach,
to we're count says all more.
And say, what do lot is do?
Or you my call it of a functionalist approach.
What's the function of laws in science? What do they
do for us? And what they do for us,
I would arrigue is, well, that's the next side.
So what the function, if you look at what the
functions of laws are in science, well, I tell you.
Is they, that if explain, why what happens happens
They lot is predict, what's going to happen next or down the road.
And they give us the means of intervening in ways to
change the outcomes of processes in nature to are benefit.
Okay, they provide means of it or beginning.
And it seems me this try umverant is pretty much,
what the last do. They also may system matise now legion.
And simply represent things and maybe illegant, they me have other things.
But the basic functions are really explained predicting a low intervention
and least on my what I'm believe to be the case.
So then, it's a very different project to say,
okay, if that's what last do,
if I walk around the curpose and biology,
do I find things that, like me do that.
And guess what the answer is? Yes. There our things,
in Bio, there our low,
there our throughs discovered generalizations that are discovered by by our liges and it collegies,
and say collegies and their our scientists, and social liges,
and who never fright,
that give us the mains to explain product in in eraven.
And for me,
that's what it means to be a law
Heeres the things, right? They explain what happens,
why would happens happens? They predict what will happen in the future,
or another circumstances, and they gives the tools in eraving.
And if you look at that as the function of laws,
then for me, I are guilt, that we should change the way,
which we think about well a love science, yes.
So they called them pragmatic laws. So pragmatic laws are
the general throughs that letters do those funk perform those functions,
episthemic functions,
if you like
Any no do to perform the functions that turns out those
general claims, don't have to be universal.
They don't have to be exceptionalist. But they discribe,
what I would called a content, dependency.
And I'm gonna spend some time tell you would that means.
They discribe real dependencies in nature, causal relations,
if you like that language, because a relations that art,
that don't hold for all space in time,
they hold for more limited domains and regions.
And they those very dependencies and this is the content in partable.
So you have this take two steps, one step,
the relation, between The Pressure and Temperature of the Gas right
is is what's a discribed in a law,
the relationship between gaming production and frequency of jeans is what's discribed in the law.
And that's very law, that's very relationship itself depends.
And features of nature on different tegrees of stability of the features
of nature that it discribes. Okay. So this will,
I hope become more clear as we go on,
this is the main point of the talk.
Okay. So, pragmatic laws on my theory
We can news the same representational devices of the logical empires.
For all ex, if access appea emplies cues,
appea, is going to only be true.
They are exceptions, it's not universely true. So it's
going to be true only in certain regions and domains.
Namely pea exemplies cuax is going to be
in variant under certain kinds of changes right.
So it's going to hold, but not everywhere in for
all time
Ich ja nicht. You see that there is if yours
have steady jump with words work,
a relationship between this kind of, what I would had been
coling contingent stability and what he's calls in Variance under,
he has different kinds of in Variance. It's interessant,
when Gym was developing is ideas about corsation,
I was developing my ideas about corses and then it was like,
how happy, we are now to be in the thing to partment.
So, there is a similarity,
but what I hope to show by the end of the
talk is that is also in important difference,
between his account and
And it provoked me those for last versus user views are
closed at I think a really pretty much almost right or
the ones I want a figure out what I it,
what is it that I don't gree with in those?
Cause then you get a much more fingrain sense of what, I think,
you should believe. Okay, so PRO, Piaxk,
Air QX is in Variante under specific range of Values of
that say the end dependent variables, described in the last.
So take the Ideal Gasla, I the ideal Gasla,
that the pressure times a times a volume of a gas,
is equal two some constant times the temperature ruffly
That's that's holds in over a wide range of circumstances,
but it breaks down. It breaks down when the Value
of the variables re is at extreme place it,
so it breaks down it high pressure and it low temperatures.
But is the pretty good law? It's not universely true.
So those of the kinds of law,
I's we find a biology too. There's a spit,
it maybe that the values of pressure in temperature,
you got a fine places,
where that relation feels to continue a hold,
or you might find that a relation feels
to continue to hold in other external context for example
I can do with the details,
but I was very impress by talk by David Meloman,
who show that many lots of physics in your blackhole,
where either fallser underfined or something like that.
So there maybe regions and others,
who knows where happens in Darkmatter or dark energy.
There maybe regions, where what we know works.
And even a very large, range ofst contacts,
still breaks down in others. So maybe external conditions that
change that make a breakdown or internal values,
values of the internal variables that are just cribe by the way.
So this to bit,
what I believe that accourse is how ever
What you see and this is one of the characterizations of the differences between
Loss of Physics and Loss of the other spent other sciences is that,
it seems to me, that typically physicists study extremely stable for namen.
For namen at that, really are fairly in pervious to what over helps is going on.
I hey, around them. Okay, these,
this is going to hold, you know,
within most temperature changes is going to hold with in most pressure changes,
this is going to hold with in most geographical locations,
it doesn't matter, you know, whether boy,
with your using wells low, whether you're in Frank, whether your in Hamburger in Pittsburgh.
Social sciences
That's going to change. Social Science Relations, my change between Hamburg and Pittsburgh.
That what they study you much more affameral structures,
hire the agree of contentency,
if we can use that language without having to invent to new metric,
because I don't know how you major that.
But there less stable. There's still the,
I still can say true things about the economy in Hamburg.
I even if it doesn't hold for Pittsburgh.
So the stability of the conditions of point what's in a
panda with the relations to scribe by the
last describe
Very. And so typically those study by physics and finamely
of physics even more than silent state physics are other forms of first fluid dynamics or whatever.
Those last are, have degree substability, right,
which, if you like translate into the range in which,
that love will continued a hold.
And you can go outside physics and see further down that
continue and two biology. And psychology and social scient,
which had study structures, can say true things about them,
but those structures of themselves like that hold use a genial
how body play and are less stable then
Say, the Total Energy in the Universe. Okay. So this way a way
looking at things is kinds of degreez of contentency, a contentent dependence,
a lotsers to repect the differences between the last of physics in the last of biology,
with out having to say, once a long,
the other is like Garbit.
Like goodmans coins in this parket, which I think is,
and we can actually sittelly the difference between mendels law and
a true climb like good mens,
the quins in good mens packet or couple.
I there are differences that we cannow web present in a
more continue is and less can't dicate cardomis and ceptual framework.
And the other side, I just say this,
but this is in part of the talk for today,
in addition to these kinds of degrees of stability that support these contingent relationships of dependence.
I also one it to go have to the
aero in the PX-Aero QX X little bit.
And so that relationship
Could be have very different kinds of strength.
So we could have it very different ministric relationship,
a problem a stocastic a problem, listic relationship.
And also to Terministic cay other crelationship. And those were
are also going to be important for end or standing.
So if you make prediction, that required, you going to
lose it in Chaos, and etc. So having a larger conceptual space in,
which to talk about the truth,
that science delivers. I think gives that's a better handle on,
the relationships, between, the true claims,
the true generizations,
that are just our the true in Variances,
discovered by that different sciences
So, now. What holds up this picture impart,
what I a tribute as a central idea in this picture
is the nation of stability and different engrease of stability.
And it turns out to other for last offers,
who have worried about what last are, what explict explanatory generalizations are.
Also, use the terms stability. Okay, as what
grounds long, both of them one a give up
this kind of universal acception was thing. And then one
is say, no, no, it's something different.
It's something to do was stability, I said,
Do we are mean the same thing, when we rereferent
to stability? Okay, so that's were going ex.
And just to give you a clou the answers now.
Okay. So, last and stability. So,
these you the three characters and you can interagate the third
one more readily than the other two, cause he's here.
But marketing. And Jim modered and I all appeared to
custability as what grounds if you are manifestation with grounds love or this.
And we takes very different editudes to what it is and
what it's doing and how it's doing what it's doing.
So I have a couple of different ways a characterizing.
That was differences. So lange himself is in a cessotarian,
which I find a very possiling position.
Being more human, then human, and my good days.
But in a cessotarianselves that the last of nature or a power to the facts.
Okay. So the facts or be the last.
And in then sometimes you could know the last a prior,
I ride right, because The facts, it's first.
The last year first tip the facts are second right.
So this not said, there is universal inherent, essential,
something very elevately matter physical, makes me and copitable.
So I don't go in that direction, or it's or it,
could be also relegistly ground in granty, which is also thick matterphysical description.
So he's in a cityring who things last or matterphysically basically government,
what facts who current a world, there is a strict distinction,
between last and excitence.
Lovel this is grounded in collect,
in the collective stability of a set of thrills and altar you,
more about each of these in a minute,
all they were don't
have about
Would word on the other handy. I would discribe him
as a come to factoral us. Following following in the footstabs,
both of the employing in the Footzeps of David Lillas,
who used a kind of factoral interpretation of what to possibility
in Assessity were in more delargets.
And would would sells that last discribly in Variances that are
normal logically true, even effects had been different in our world.
So they would have hold it new metric,
even if the facts had been different,
the true some of the trues, we know now would haves held.
And his book, making things work, is actually set
cept the problem of explanation,
as set us find the too requirement of telling us,
what would have a happened of things it been different
Okay, that's what he takes is main challenge.
And my view, I would defined as a pragmatic actualist,
which is that the last discribe patterns of facts that actually
a cure in our experience of the experiments in the world.
So the title of the talk, which is about kind of factuals,
is about to be come the center stage.
So lang just to give you little bit more detail,
takes a view, follows in energine for the followers,
in the room, your recognizes,
is part of the millow as Ramsey Account of laughfulness
Two settens it's onders. It's again a project to suggest,
that what last of science to do is that they kartify the fact.
So this is a kind of human position,
which says, there's all these facts.
So he's funny cause he's both in the sessit turn and human,
I can quite figure out how do makes sense out of that.
But we have all these facts, maybe other epics can
help in this scussion, I'd great they appreciate it.
We have all these facts about the world and if
we can get last they will they will carte of eye and simplified hose
facts and the best weight the represent their messence actually matise
systems. I diductive systems. So if I'm get the
active right, Axioms, they will from the Axioms,
out we able to dos, all of the experimental last.
And so the Axioms, of the system of the best system,
there's a lot of a last, we reading about this,
by the way, the best systems theory, this is also called.
The Axioms of the best system, are going to be
the last. That's what's going to make a lot.
They just the Axioms of the systems that are the simple
list and the strongest.
So there's two criteria
For the Axioma tigh system and whatever meets the simple list and
strongest Axima tigh system, those Axioms will become as the last.
And so for lang he's in this in this important,
this project. And he's this ability is the condition that
for any set of thrills, take a settituals.
They still would be true, give an any kind of factual suboosition,
logically consystem, with every member of the set.
So he's working with an avagical interpretation of how to make
sense at a last. And he, so basically is,
if I have these these trues and Anything that's,
I can think of that could happen that's consystem with them,
there's still true, that is what makes them stable,
right?
They can be disrupted by kind of factuals. And he things
that possessing some right even accessity is boss to be different from
just being in variant and their wide range of kind of factual supposition.
So you need something a little strunger. And he saids,
the set of last is maximally brasiliant as Resilient is a could logically passibly be,
there is a species of necessary that all and only its mebbers possess,
right?
And that's what in he saids a couple times.
Okay. So to be a law
Is that you have your in this actually might time system
and you got the axi ams that are in purvious to counterfactual supposition.
So now this you don't have to get a great from
the national science foundation in the European science foundation to do this,
you just have to think about what's logually, largically consystem with that.
It's a total, counterfactual this possible, possibility account.
One the consequences of his view. How webber and he aims to capsure,
better capsure, scientific progressy, kind,
wants to beable to explain, why there are lots in things,
other than fundamental physics
So he has all, there's now new free floating sets
of throughs, throughs about physics, pentrus about ecology.
So he would to say, that the last specific to ecology,
presents can possess kind of necessity, right?
So unlike the strict feel. The kind of epnecessity,
that's kind of independent of the last of physics.
Cause you are they are you create early acts your trues,
and all of the ecological passed logical possibilities,
that these actseams are impervious to it makes them necessarily true of ecology.
But he makes, it it also in tells that,
the kind of necessarily would be persast
Charakteristik, we cological last,
could not be possess by the phänomenal last of physics.
And the stability eventual logical last would give them and important kind of outtanomy.
They are nutral and hands applicable even to certain hyper thatical
systems that violet the fundamental last of physics.
So one his account, you can have ecological last and have
all all of the features of lovelness and be inconsistent with the last of physics.
And I have to say,
if his goal list to capture science to big practice,
the ecologist I know, who are working on equalitical last.
I don't think with accept that, as a concept concept
that behaviors of their last
So, he is, this his notion of stabilities that that
the characterization of it. Would word and that me go
to off, then me get these all out.
I don't have so many moreful slides. He has there's
a lot of words here, but I can summarize it.
He is a notion of in Varian, sundary in your vention, right?
And again, he's looking at, ideal in orventions,
which are counterfacturals in the old faction sense things that could
would would art true as well as hypothetical,
kind of facturals, things that might be true in the future,
right experimental results, for example.
And he things that in Varian,
sundary in orvention is intended to do the workers was
a quote
Dann by the nation of a love nature, right?
Okay. So, this and variance as fost to do function, that's good.
It's bus to function like a lot. And the nation,
but he things an nation of invariances is model, right?
Namily or counterfactual. Namily that it has to do,
but whether relationship would remain stable,
if per helps country to actual effect, certain changes or interventions
accourt. So, it's differentitional of this account of intervention
that it's kind of factual and models,
but what's possible and what's
And variot, if you don't only is a lang good of in assessity.
And for himmels stability is a feature of this these case
of relations right, that comes in the grease,
a reflex the range and significants a background conditions that,
what disrupted at the excurses why relationship.
So he things low,
but anyone to get up this difference between physics imbiology,
he things that last of physics hold over wide range a background condition,
where is biological generalizations,
quote somewhat more restricted ranges of stability
But for me, as you know, are ready,
I hope, that's ability is an non-menodal content property.
I notion. It's weather and how well it generalisation,
functions is allow depends on weather the actual conditions on which
the behavior it discribes to penda stable.
For word word, it's whether a generalization is stable
depends on booth possible and actual conditions. And it's a
model conconceptual notion minds and non-model content this is the title of the talk,
contenting conceptual and constructure till for me it's contingent and auto you want what.
For lang, it's a call the collective stability and
the circums cry possible not actual kind of factuals.
Is model and constitue to of the necessitive required by last at
this beyond in Variance. So what we take stability mean,
it's really quite different. Here's a somewhere that,
how hope will make it a little clear.
What is the object a plan which stability is predicted?
What is a stability referred too? For lang it's a
set of two climbs, there's stable.
For what would it it's a calls all the pendence in
for me, it's a calls of dependents?
We would great
it that
What are the changes that under which it must be stable that
give it the property are being a lot or as tape that?
A property being a lot. For lang, it's logically
possible conditions. I don't even have to go appenburg.
For what word, it's ideal and actual interventions.
And for me, it's actual conditions. So this is
why you get the difference between being a kind of factualists in a a actualist.
For lang, counter functions, or actually constituative tive of lowerfulness.
For what word, it's a conceptual requirement.
I has to do both actual and card of factual.
And for me, out of factuals and this is the
new part today for you all free years only,
is can tengene on our psychology.
So what is that mean? Here is the psychological story
of kind of factuals. We think in count of factuals.
We think about causation in terms of kind of actuals.
Psychologists study this about us. Human beings used counter factual
thought. In order to do things, better.
And to achieve are goals into improve our port performances.
Lots of studys, you can look at the psychological literature with children.
Children Human's a quire explicit can refactual think,
thinking run the age of three in for,
lots of psychologies, bent time, turturing, children
just see what they do have it or not.
There cute now they with two is, it's fun.
Okay. They generate alternative word, world,
that's what these children do, and what we do is a doll,
you are a generate alternative words, world's conceptually psychologically, you represent
fall city as, if it we're true, right?
Okay, I'm going to, say this this page
is now it argue, right?
Okay, I can do that, that's a car offactual thought process.
I can hold multiple representations in mind,
and I can make comparisons between possible worlds
That's what the psychology of kind of factual reasoning is. And it's thought,
that the Ability did think kind of factually actually helps,
humans, regulate their behavior in improved hask performance.
I'm a lot board that. I'm author that, that's
how we work. But here's the problem. For me,
do we want to take counter-factuals from psychology the matiphisics?
Do we want to make constitual constituative type or required
for what it is to be a love nature?
Hey, the planet it would be fine and maybe
zone without humans on it
It's still have laws, with there's still be in variant regularities.
I think there would be, okay, with there be counterfactuals, now.
If, as I avargue, there's side a feature of our psychology. So,
what met a physical claims to facts about counterfactuals in cognation employee,
could it be that we think in terms of cannot factuals,
that's part of the human condition,
we are well that way at really helps a lot,
makes as pretty clever, right,
relative that the organizem side that maybe.
Psychologically, and we do we psychologically project that
onto the world
It's not can studied to to of what corsation in the world
is, of what warful relations in the world are.
It's just part of how we think about it.
So conclusion. I gave a private medical count of scientivical laws,
that knowledge of causal dependencies in nature are in variant,
not you universal, that comes in the grease.
They're can tingent. They're not necessary, they depent on
path dependent and chance of vents in the evolutionary case.
They depent on that stability of the conditions,
that support the relations that are describt in the laws.
They discribe actual relations in the world
So I'm an actual list. And they do promited country factual thinking.
But they're not to pending on kind of factuals. So if pragmatic laws,
if a standard for a something being a pragmatic law,
a part of inedition to its being functioning as a law,
is that their descriptions of nature that work for us,
that's a pragmatic kind of short hand.
Maybe we should be concerned about whether their descriptions of nature that work for us.
Or they're be, oh, what work charactered,
which I hope is what uncharacterising and my view,
or whether their descriptions of nature, that work for us,
which is their putting count of factual terms,
that map on to our own psychology.
And with that, I want thank you,
for listening again. And invite to ask questions.
Oh no, that sure to.
Thank you very much