● Este ensayo corre el velo de una estrecha relación entre los símbolos astrológicos y el mundo fenoménico y explica cómo dicotomías características de los siglos XVIII y XX han dificultado esta y otras comprensiones de nuestra realidad. ● Las observaciones se apoyan en los hallazgos producidos durante los últimos cuarenta años con relación a los planetas, sus características astronómicas y propiedades astrofísicas, hallazgos que corroboran casi integralmente los esbozos que sobre los planetas hiciera, entre otros autores, VETIO VALENTE (s. (...) II a.C.) en su afamada Antología. ● Como el sol alcanza su mayor fuerza durante el verano y su menor fuerza durante el invierno, también el resto de los miembros de nuestro sistema solar cobran fuerzas en diferentes segmentos de la eclíptica, contribuyendo en matices específicos de las condiciones del clima en diferentes épocas, lo que nutre las significaciones (o propiedades) zodiacales. ● Apoyándonos en hechos constatados por la física y el magnetismo molecular, defendemos la eclíptica (Zodiaco) como una realidad físico química cuyos doce segmentos afianzan o menoscaban el poder aparentemente electromagnético de algunos planetas con relación a la Tierra en diferentes épocas según la revolución solar de cada uno. ● Con el fin de favorecer la comprensión, prejuicios comunes necesitan ser tratados, y de ahí los tres acápites que componen la introducción del ensayo, uno de los cuales aborda un recurso del lenguaje, la alegoría, con el fin de demostrar su recurrente necesidad tanto en el pasado como en el presente sin que dicha práctica constituya una infidelidad fenoménica. ● Por último, ofrecemos la explicación más plausible producida hasta ahora sobre el mecanismo de acción responsable de la astrología, es decir, de la influencia de los cuerpos celestes (más allá de la luna y del sol) sobre la vida en la Tierra: «quantum entanglement», o la “acción misteriosa a distancia” incrédulamente formulada por EINSTEIN en 1935, cuya comprobación les ganó el Premio Nobel de Física 2022 a ANTON ZEILINGER y JOHN CLAUSER. ● Utilizamos un número considerable de ilustraciones a los fines de apoyar la comprensión del lector, que puede no ser astrólogo sino un curioso, y esperamos que sean más los curiosos que los astrólogos, especialmente si hacen parte de la comunidad científica. (shrink)

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, the structural property of static gravitational field, a geometric field, in curved coordinates, according the functions guv, that express geometric relations between material events. Course, general relativity is a relational theory, however, gravity, a thinking category, has symetric physical effects with matter. We use, analitic and critic method of reread the general relativity, since the perspective of the history of the science and the philosophy of the science. Our goal is driver the debate on (...) gravity, to the arena of the quantum physics, but without the ballast of the general relativity. We find that through of relativist aether was attempted transform spacetime in a substantia without succes, the consequence was return to problematic geometric field. The philosophy of the science intervenes, and according the best philosophical theory of substantivalism, spacetime is a inmaterial, geometric substantia. Then, the metaphysics arrives to a full solution in the super-substantivalism theory, that affirms: matter arises from geometric spacetime. Thus, it explains consistently the symetric physical effects between spacetime and matter. Surely, this solution is a medieval speculation. Our conclusion is that since general relativity do not defined physically spacetime leads necessarily to philosophical definitions of relationism and substantivalism on spacetime that are unacceptable physically. Therefore, gravity is not the curvature of spacetime. (shrink)

This book is a collection of articles dealing with criticisms of Robert S. Hartman’s theory of formal axiology. During his lifetime, Hartman wrote responses to many of his critics. Some of these were previously published but many are published here for the first time. In particular, published here are Hartman’s replies to such critics as Hector Neri Castañeda, Charles Hartshorne, Rem B. Edwards, Robert E. Carter, G. R. Grice, Nicholas Rescher, Robert W. Mueller, Gordon Welty, Pete Gunter, George Kimball Plochmann, (...) William Eckhardt, and Robert S. Brumbaugh. Crticial essays and responses to them developed by Rem B. Edwards, Frank G. Forrest, and Mark A. Moore after Hartman’s untimely death in 1973 are also included. (shrink)

Ideas for explaining the mechanism of gravity involving the expansion of matter have been proposed several times since the 1890’s. Due to their radical nature and other reasons, these ideas have not gotten much attention. Another essential feature needed to augment the viability of the model proposed here---even more important than matter expansion---is that of space generation. I.e., the production of space by matter, involving motion into or outfrom a fourth spatial dimension. An experiment is proposed whose result would unequivocally (...) either falsify the model or support it. Analyses of star cluster velocity dispersions suggest that some support already exists. The simplest, most definitive way to test the model is to build and operate an apparatus that may be called a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider. Essentially the same experiment was proposed by Galileo in 1632. We are way overdue to at last bring to fruition this idea put forth by the Father of Modern Science so long ago. (shrink)

A new form of skepticism is described, which holds that objectivity and understanding are incompossible ideals of modern science. This is attributed to Weyl, hence its name: Weylean skepticism. Two general defeat strategies are then proposed, one of which is rejected.

Einstein’s 1935 derivation of mass—energy equivalence is philosophically important because it contains both a criticism of purported demonstrations that proceed by analogy and strong motivations for the definitions of the ‘new’ dynamical quantities. In this paper, I argue that Einstein’s criticism and insights are still relevant today by showing how his derivation goes beyond Friedman’s demonstration of this result in his Foundations of Spacetime ¹heories. Along the way, I isolate three distinct physical claims associated with Einstein’s famous equation that are (...) sometimes not clearly distinguished in philosophical discussions of spacetime theory. (shrink)

We investigate the interplay and connections between symmetry properties of equations, the interpretation of coordinates, the construction of observables, and the existence of physical relativity principles in spacetime theories. Using the refined notion of an event as a "point-coincidence" between scalar fields that completely characterise a spacetime model, we also propose a natural generalisation of the relational local observables that does not require the existence of four everywhere invertible scalar fields. The collection of all point-coincidences forms in generic situations a (...) four-dimensional manifold, that is naturally identified with the physical spacetime. (shrink)

Albert Einstein’s practice in physics and his philosophical positions gradually reoriented themselves from more empiricist towards rationalist viewpoints. This change accompanied his turn towards unified field theory and different presentations of himself, eventually leading to his highly programmatic Autobiographical Notes in 1949. Einstein enlisted his own history and professional stature to mold an ideal of a theoretical physicist who represented particular epistemic virtues and moral qualities. These in turn reflected the theoretical ideas of his strongly mathematical unification program and professed (...) Spinozist beliefs. (shrink)

During the last decade new developments in theoretical and speculative cosmology have reopened the old discussion of cosmology’s scientific status and the more general question of the demarcation between science and non-science. The multiverse hypothesis, in particular, is central to this discussion and controversial because it seems to disagree with methodological and epistemic standards traditionally accepted in the physical sciences. But what are these standards and how sacrosanct are they? Does anthropic multiverse cosmology rest on evaluation criteria that conflict with (...) and go beyond those ordinarily accepted, so that it constitutes an “epistemic shift” in fundamental physics? The paper offers a brief characterization of the modern multiverse and also refers to a few earlier attempts to introduce epistemic shifts in the science of the universe. It further discusses the several meanings of testability, addresses the question of falsifiability as a sine qua non for a theory being scientific, and briefly compares the situation in cosmology with the one in systematic biology. Multiverse theory is not generally falsifiable, which has led to proposals from some physicists to overrule not only Popperian standards but also other evaluation criteria of a philosophical nature. However, this is hardly possible and nor is it possible to get rid of explicit philosophical considerations in some other aspects of cosmological research, however advanced it becomes. (shrink)

The line of argument pursued in this paper is to proceed from Einstein’s fundamental problem situation to a consideration of scientific representation with respect to the Special theory of relativity (STR). Einstein’s fundamental problem situation, which is Kantian in spirit, is how the conceptual freedom of the scientist is compatible with the need for an objective representation of an independently given material world. To solve this philosophical issue Einstein employs a number of constraints, which are central to the STR. The (...) issue of scientific representation leads to a consideration of the notion of reality and to the realistic commitments implied in the STR. From this point of view, the paper concludes that Einstein was committed to a kind of ‘structural’ realism. (shrink)

This paper analyzes correspondence between Reichenbach and Einstein from the spring of 1926, concerning what it means to ‘geometrize’ a physical field. The content of a typewritten note that Reichenbach sent to Einstein on that occasion is reconstructed, showing that it was an early version of §49 of the untranslated Appendix to his Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre, on which Reichenbach was working at the time. This paper claims that the toy-geometrization of the electromagnetic field that Reichenbach presented in his note should (...) not be regarded as merely a virtuoso mathematical exercise, but as an additional argument supporting the core philosophical message of his 1928 monograph. This paper concludes by suggesting that Reichenbach’s infamous ‘relativization of geometry’ was only a stepping stone on the way to his main concern—the question of the ‘geometrization of gravitation’. (shrink)

The paper offers a historical overview of Einstein's oscillating attitude towards a "phenomenological" and "dynamical" treatment of rods and clocks in relativity theory. Contrary to what it has been usually claimed in recent literature, it is argued that this distinction should not be understood in the framework of opposition between principle and constructive theories. In particular Einstein does not seem to have plead for a "dynamical" explanation for the phenomenon rods contraction and clock dilation which was initially described only "kinematically". (...) On the contrary textual evidence shows that, according to Einstein, a realistic microscopic model of rods and clocks was needed to account for the very existence of measuring devices of "identical construction" which always measure the same unit of time and the same unit of length. In fact, it will be shown that the empirical meaningfulness of both relativity theories depends on what, following Max Born, one might call the "principle of the physical identity of the units of measure". In the attempt to justify the validity of such principle, Einstein was forced by different interlocutors, in particular Hermann Weyl and Wolfgang Pauli, to deal with the genuine epistemological, rather then physical question whether a theory should be able or not to described the material devices that serve to its own verification. (shrink)

The paper discusses the Kantian legacy in modern views about scientific theories. The aim of this paper is to show how Einstein's philosophy of science, which was inspired by his physics, offers a specialized version of the Kantian synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism. In modern physical theories Kant's a priori conditions become “constraints,” as shown in Einstein's use of principle theories. Einstein's use of principle theories shows how constraints are used to steer the mapping of the rational onto the empirical (...) elements of scientific theories. (shrink)

Relativity was Einstein’s main research programme and scientific project. It was an open-ended programme that developed throughout Einstein’s scientific career, giving rise to special relativity (SR), general relativity (GR), and unified field theory. In this article, we want to uncover the methodological logic of the Einsteinian programme, which animated the whole programme and its development, and as it was revealed in SR, GR, and unified field theory. We aver that the same methodological logic animated all these theories as Einstein’s work (...) progressed. Each of these theories contributed towards constructing Einstein’s ambitious programme. This article is not a contribution to the history of relativity, but, rather, it utilises our knowledge of this history to uncover the methodological logic of the relativity programme and its development. This logic is latent in the historical narrative but is not identical to it. We hope to show that the Einsteinian relativity project is still relevant today as a theoretical scheme, despite its failures and despite quantum mechanics. (shrink)

Gerald Holton has famously described Einstein’s career as a philosophical “pilgrimage”. Starting on “the historic ground” of Machian positivism and phenomenalism, following the completion of general relativity in late 1915, Einstein’s philosophy endured (a) a speculative turn: physical theorizing appears as ultimately a “pure mathematical construction” guided by faith in the simplicity of nature and (b) a realistic turn: science is “nothing more than a refinement ”of the everyday belief in the existence of mind-independent physical reality. Nevertheless, Einstein’s mathematical constructivism (...) that supports his unified field theory program appears to be, at first sight, hardly compatible with the common sense realism with which he countered quantum theory. Thus, literature on Einstein’s philosophy of science has often struggled in finding the thread between ostensibly conflicting philosophical pronouncements. This paper supports the claim that Einstein’s dialog with Émile Meyerson from the mid 1920s till the early 1930s might be a neglected source to solve this riddle. According to Einstein, Meyerson shared (a) his belief in the independent existence of an external world and (b) his conviction that the latter can be grasped only by speculative means. Einstein could present his search for a unified field theory as a metaphysical-realistic program opposed to the positivistic-operationalist spirit of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

An overlap between the general relativist and particle physicist views of Einstein gravity is uncovered. Noether's 1918 paper developed Hilbert's and Klein's reflections on the conservation laws. Energy-momentum is just a term proportional to the field equations and a "curl" term with identically zero divergence. Noether proved a \emph{converse} "Hilbertian assertion": such "improper" conservation laws imply a generally covariant action. Later and independently, particle physicists derived the nonlinear Einstein equations assuming the absence of negative-energy degrees of freedom for stability, along (...) with universal coupling: all energy-momentum including gravity's serves as a source for gravity. Those assumptions imply that the energy-momentum is only a term proportional to the field equations and a symmetric curl, which implies the coalescence of the flat background geometry and the gravitational potential into an effective curved geometry. The flat metric, though useful in Rosenfeld's stress-energy definition, disappears from the field equations. Thus the particle physics derivation uses a reinvented Noetherian converse Hilbertian assertion in Rosenfeld-tinged form. The Rosenfeld stress-energy is identically the canonical stress-energy plus a Belinfante curl and terms proportional to the field equations, so the flat metric is only a convenient mathematical trick without ontological commitment. Neither generalized relativity of motion, nor the identity of gravity and inertia, nor substantive general covariance is assumed. The more compelling criterion of lacking ghosts yields substantive general covariance as an output. Hence the particle physics derivation, though logically impressive, is neither as novel nor as ontologically laden as it has seemed. (shrink)

. In what follows, I review the modern theory of the origin of the universe as astronomers and physicists are coming to understand it during the last decades of the twentieth century. An unexpected discovery of this study is that the story of “cosmogenesis” cannot be completely told unless we understand the fundamental nature of matter, space, and time. In the context of modern cosmology space has become not only the bedrock of our physical existence, it may yield a fuller (...) understanding of the universe itself. (shrink)

During the last decade new developments in theoretical and speculative cosmology have reopened the old discussion of cosmology's scientific status and the more general question of the demarcation between science and non-science. The multiverse hypothesis, in particular, is central to this discussion and controversial because it seems to disagree with methodological and epistemic standards traditionally accepted in the physical sciences. But what are these standards and how sacrosanct are they? Does anthropic multiverse cosmology rest on evaluation criteria that conflict with (...) and go beyond those ordinarily accepted, so that it constitutes an “epistemic shift” in fundamental physics? The paper offers a brief characterization of the modern multiverse and also refers to a few earlier attempts to introduce epistemic shifts in the science of the universe. It further discusses the several meanings of testability, addresses the question of falsifiability as a sine qua non for a theory being scientific, and briefly compares the situation in cosmology with the one in systematic biology. Multiverse theory is not generally falsifiable, which has led to proposals from some physicists to overrule not only Popperian standards but also other evaluation criteria of a philosophical nature. However, this is hardly possible and nor is it possible to get rid of explicit philosophical considerations in some other aspects of cosmological research, however advanced it becomes. (shrink)

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion.

The physical meaning of gauge groups in bimetrical, Riemannian, and Hermitian theories of gravitation is discussed. In Hermitian relativity, Einstein's A-invariance means a super-gauge group which characterizes the Einstein-Schrödinger equations as the only nondegenerate general-relativistic field theory.

The paper discusses the invariance view of reality: a view inspired by the relativity and quantum theory. It is an attempt to show that both versions of Structural Realism (epistemological and ontological) are already embedded in the invariance view but in each case the invariance view introduces important modifications. From the invariance view we naturally arrive at a consideration of symmetries and structures. It is often claimed that there is a strong connection between invariance and reality, established by symmetries. The (...) invariance view seems to render frame-invariant properties real, while frame-specific properties are illusory. But on a perspectival, yet observer-free view of frame-specific realities they too must be regarded as real although supervenient on frame-invariant realities. Invariance and perspectivalism are thus two faces of symmetries. Symmetries also elucidate structures. Because of this recognition, the invariance view is more comprehensive than Structural Realism. Referring to broken symmetries and coherence considerations, the paper concludes that at least some symmetries are ontological, not just epistemological constraints. (shrink)

Explores the science and creative process behind Poe’s cosmological treatise. Silver Winner for Philosophy, 2017 Foreword INDIES Book of the Year Awards In 1848, almost a year and a half before Edgar Allan Poe died at the age of forty, his book Eureka was published. In it, he weaved together his scientific speculations about the universe with his own literary theory, theology, and philosophy of science. Although Poe himself considered it to be his magnum opus, Eureka has mostly been overlooked (...) or underappreciated, sometimes even to the point of being thought an elaborate hoax. Remarkably, however, in Eureka Poe anticipated at least nine major theories and developments in twentieth-century science, including the Big Bang theory, multiverse theory, and the solution to Olbers’ paradox. In this book—the first devoted specifically to Poe’s science side—David N. Stamos, a philosopher of science, combines scientific background with analysis of Poe’s life and work to highlight the creative and scientific achievements of this text. He examines Poe’s literary theory, theology, and intellectual development, and then compares Poe’s understanding of science with that of scientists and philosophers from his own time to the present. Next, Stamos pieces together and clarifies Poe’s theory of scientific imagination, which he then attempts to update and defend by providing numerous case studies of eureka moments in modern science and by seeking insights from comparative biography and psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and evolution. David N. Stamos teaches philosophy at York University in Toronto. He is the author of several books, including Darwin and the Nature of Species, also published by SUNY Press. (shrink)