I consider difficult data involving the interaction of attitudes and conditionals, specifically non-doxastic attitude expressions like 'regret'. I first show that felicitous attitude conditionals in "ignorance contexts", where the relevant person doesn't know the antecedent is true, give rise to a number of difficult problems given widely held assumptions in semantics. I then argue that, even so, we should expect these conditionals to be true and reasonable to utter in ignorance contexts, given certain other kinds of attitude construction that tend (...) to involve free relatives like `whatever'. I then use that observation to explain many of the more puzzling aspects of these conditionals, and to show that we should treat felicitous doxastic attitude conditionals differently from felicitous non-doxastic ones. I leave explaining felicitous doxastic attitude conditionals for future work, but offer constraints on a satisfying explanation of them. (shrink)

I make a proposal about what wondering is and how it differs from other mental phenomena like curiosity. I argue that, though it's tempting to analyze wondering as a desire to know the answer to the question one wonders about, that would be wrong, since wondering is an activity rather than a state, i.e., something we do. I also argue that wondering about a question needn't even essentially involve a desire to know the answer to that question, even as a (...) necessary part of what rationalizes the wondering. Instead, on my account, to wonder about a question is to consider various possible answers as possible answers, guided by mechanisms whose function is to make the subject epistemically better off with respect to those answers, and which considering ceases at least when a person is consciously certain of the answer to their question. This allows wondering to not be objectionably metacognitive, and allows us to make sense of cases in which the motivating desire isn't to know an answer but just to wonder itself. (shrink)

I investigate when we can (rationally) have attitudes, and when we cannot. I argue that a comprehensive theory must explain three phenomena. First, being related by descriptions or names to a proposition one has strong reason to believe is true does not guarantee that one can rationally believe that proposition. Second, such descriptions, etc. do enable individuals to rationally have various non-doxastic attitudes, such as hope and admiration. And third, even for non-doxastic attitudes like that, not just any description will (...) allow it. I argue that we should think of attitude formation like we do (practical) choices among options. I motivate this view linguistically, extending "relevant alternatives'' theories of the attitudes to both belief and to the other, non-doxastic attitudes. Given a natural principle governing choice, and some important differences between doxastic and non-doxastic "choices'', we can explain these puzzling phenomena. (shrink)

I argue that we can reason not only to new beliefs but to basically any change in attitude we can think of, including the abandonment of belief (contra John Broome), the acquisition of non-belief attitudes like relief and admiration, and the elimination of the same. To argue for this position, which I call generalism, I defend a sufficient condition on reasoning, roughly that we can reason to any change in attitude that is expressed by the conclusion of an argument we (...) can be convinced by. I then produce examples of such arguments, and argue that they are indeed arguments. To produce such examples of the elimination of non-doxastic attitudes, I develop the idea of a state of attitudinal constraint acceptance, and show how it is useful for solving this problem, and useful in other parts of philosophy as well. (shrink)

I develop and argue for a kind of externalism about certain kinds of non-doxastic attitudes that I call policy externalism. Policy externalism about a given type of attitude is the view that all the reasonable policies for having attitudes of that type will not involve the agent's beliefs that some relevant conditions obtain. My defense primarily involves attitudes like hatred, regret, and admiration, and has two parts: a direct deductive argument and an indirect linguistic argument, an inference to the best (...) explanation of some strange ways we use certain conditionals. The main thought throughout is that attitudes we reason with, like belief, are very different from attitudes we don't reason with, in a way that constrains the former but not the latter. Finally, I investigate some consequences of policy externalism, including that it secures the possibility of genuine conditional apologies. (shrink)

We argue that philosophers ought to distinguish epistemic decision theory and epistemology, in just the way ordinary decision theory is distinguished from ethics. Once one does this, the internalist arguments that motivate much of epistemic decision theory make sense, given specific interpretations of the formalism. Making this distinction also causes trouble for the principle called Propriety, which says, roughly, that the only acceptable epistemic utility functions make probabilistically coherent credence functions immodest. We cast doubt on this requirement, but then argue (...) that epistemic decision theorists should never have wanted such a strong principle in any case. (shrink)

In these comments on David Hunter’s insightful new book On Believing, I consider Hunter’s account of believing that p as being in a position to act in light of the fact (or apparent fact) that p. After investigating how this kind of view is supposed to work, I raise a challenge for it: the account is unlikely to generalize to other attitudes like hoping and fearing that p. I then argue that this really is an objection to the account of (...) believing, since all the attitudes have so many fundamental features in common that there should be a common core to the accounts of all the different attitudes. Since hoping and fearing that p in no way even commit the speaker to the belief that p, they can’t allow the agent to act in light of the (apparent) fact that p. Thus, I conclude, believing isn’t a matter of being in such a position, and neither is the having of any other type of attitude. (shrink)

Davidson’s epistemology, like Kant’s, features a transcendental argument as its centerpiece. Both philosophers reject any priority, whether epistemological or conceptual, of the subjective over the objective, attempting thus to solve the problem of the external world. For Davidson, three varieties of knowledge are coordinate—knowledge of the self, of other minds, and of the external world. None has priority. Despite the epistemologically coordinate status of the mind and the world, however, the content of the mind can be shown to entail how (...) it is out in the world. More exactly, Davidson argues, we could not possibly have the beliefs we have, with their contents, unless the world around us was pretty much the way we take it to be, at least in its general outline. We are thus offered a way to argue, to all appearances a priori, from how it is in our minds to how it is in the world. The argument is a priori at least in being free of premises or assumptions about contingent particularities concerning the world around us or our relation to it. From premises about the contents of our propositional attitudes, the argument wends its way to a conclusion about the general lines of how the world around us is structured and populated. Before presenting his own account, Davidson rejects received views of meaning and knowledge. What follows will combine themes from his critique of alternatives with his more positive account and how it deals with the skeptic. (shrink)

I formulate and tentatively defend the view that we cannot be rationally required to have one type of doxastic attitude (e.g., beliefs, credences, imprecise credences, etc.) because we have another type; in other words, we can only be required to have, say, given credences because we have some other credences already. I explore an argument that appeals to the idea that there is no good reasoning from one type to the other type. I consider some important possible responses, and conclude (...) by sketching a different argument for the same conclusion, appealing to the nature of inquiry and belief-formation. (shrink)

ABSTRACTWe express and communicate many attitudes beyond belief, such as amusement, joy, admiration, hatred, and desire. I consider whether there are any general norms that would cover all of these cases. The most obvious generalisation of the most popular norms for assertion, fittingness-based theories, fail in part because it is sometimes an intrinsic good to have certain kinds of mental states. I develop an alternative, rightness-based, approach, according to which it is appropriate to communicate a mental state to an interlocutor (...) when it is right to make the interlocutor have that mental state because of the speech act. This view arises naturally from conversational participants’ common interests, and it helps to make sense of linguistic phenomena like expressives. (shrink)

Complex demonstratives, expressions of the form 'That F', 'These Fs', etc., have traditionally been taken to be referring terms. Yet they exhibit many of the features of quantified noun phrases. This has led some philosophers to suggest that demonstrative determiners are a special kind of quantifier, which can be paraphrased using a context sensitive definite description. Both these views contain elements of the truth, though each is mistaken. We advance a novel account of the semantic form of complex demonstratives that (...) shows how to reconcile the view that they function like quantified noun phrases with the view that simple demonstratives function as context sensitive referring terms wherever they occur. If we are right, previous accounts of complex demonstratives have misconceived their semantic role; and philosophers relying on the majority view in employing complex demonstratives in analysis have proceeded on a false assumption. (shrink)

Our aim in the present paper is to investigate, from the standpoint of truth-theoretic semantics, English tense, temporal designators and quantifiers, and other expressions we use to relate ourselves and other things to the temporal order. Truth-theoretic semantics provides a particularly illuminating standpoint from which to discuss issues about the semantics of tense, and their relation to thoughts at, and about, times. Tense, and temporal modifiers, contribute systematically to conditions under which sentences we utter are true or false. A Tarski-style (...) truth-theoretic semantics, by requiring explicitly represented truth conditions, helps to sharpen questions about the function of tense, and to deepen our insight into the contribution the tenses and temporal modifiers make to what we say by using them. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell, in the second of his 1914 Lowell lectures, Our Knowledge of the External World, asserted famously that ‘every philosophical problem, when it is subjected to the necessary analysis and purification, is found either to be not really philosophical at all, or else to be, in the sense in which we are using the word, logical’ (Russell 1993, p. 42). He went on to characterize that portion of logic that concerned the study of forms of propositions, or, as he (...) called them, ‘logical forms’. This portion of logic he called ‘philosophical logic’. Russell asserted that ... some kind of knowledge of logical forms, though with most people it is not explicit, is involved in all understanding of discourse. It is the business of philosophical logic to extract this knowledge from its concrete integuments, and to render it explicit and pure. (p. 53) Perhaps no one still endorses quite this grand a view of the role of logic and the investigation of logical form in philosophy. But talk of logical form retains a central role in analytic philosophy. Given its widespread use in philosophy and linguistics, it is rather surprising that the concept of logical form has not received more attention by philosophers than it has. The concern of this paper is to say something about what talk of logical form comes to, in a tradition that stretches back to (and arguably beyond) Russell’s use of that expression. This will not be exactly Russell’s conception. For we do not endorse Russell’s view that propositions are the bearers of logical form, or that appeal to propositions adds anything to our understanding of what talk of logical form comes to. But we will be concerned to provide an account responsive to the interests expressed by Russell in the above quotations, though one clarified of extraneous elements, and expressed precisely. For this purpose, it is important to note that the concern expressed by Russell in the above passages, as the surrounding text makes clear, is a concern not just with logic conceived narrowly as the study of logical terms, but with propositional form more generally, which includes, e.g., such features as those that correspond to the number of argument places in a propositional function, and the categories of objects which propositional.... (shrink)

This paper advances a general argument, inspired by some remarks of Davidson, to show that appeal to meanings as entities in the theory of meaning is neither necessary nor sufficient for carrying out the tasks of the theory of meaning. The crucial point is that appeal to meaning as entities fails to provide us with an understanding of any expression of a language except insofar as we pick it out with an expression we understand which we tacitly recognize to be (...) a translation of the term whose meaning we want to illuminate by the appeal to assigning to it a meaning. The meaning drops out as irrelevant: the work is done, and can only be done, by matching terms already understood with terms they translate. (shrink)

The main concept of quantum field theory is the conviction that all the phenomena in the universe are created by the underlying structure of the quantum fields. Fields represent dynamical spatial properties that can be described with the help of geometrical concepts. Therefore it is possible to describe the mathematical origin of the structure of the creating fields and show the mathematical origin of the law of conservation of energy, Planck’s constant and the constant speed of light within a non-local (...) universe. (shrink)

The dissertation adopts the question of self-determination as a thread to guide us into Martin Heidegger's work. Heidegger's early work is expounded as an attempt to ascertain the possibility of self-determination, while his later work is expounded as the renunciation of this attempt. In chapters one to four, the author focuses on the exposition of Being and Time. The author upholds that Heidegger's early philosophy is torn in different directions. In the phenomenological descriptions of the first division of Being and (...) Time, we see the attempt to think Dasein as a relational being, which depends on others and on the world. However, Heidegger's distinction between authentic and inauthentic Dasein is not only descriptive. It contains a call to self-determination. The philosophy of Being and Time changes as a result of this call. In order to ascertain the possibility of self-determination, Heidegger shifts the focus away from being-in-the-world and toward the self's concern with itself. The theory of temporality as the meaning of care obliterates the essential thrownness of Dasein. The author argues that there is a conflict between phenomenological description and existentialist concern with oneself in Heidegger's early project. In chapter five, the author argues that this conflict is one of the main reasons for the famous "turning" in Heidegger's philosophy. Heidegger realizes that he cannot grasp the world-oriented, "ecstatical" character of Dasein without giving up his early theory of temporality as the meaning of care. The idea of a supra-historical articulation of existential structures is rejected. The author argues that "epochality" and "nativity" are the basic forms of Dasein's lack of self-determination. Human being is never autonomous, insofar as it always already belongs to a particular age and historical people. (shrink)

This paper responds to a critical review of our 2005 book Donald Davidson: Meaning, Truth, Language and Reality, by Frederick Stoutland. It identifies a number of serious misreadings of both Davidson and the book.

In the past the particle-wave duality of electromagnetic waves dominated the discussions about the nature of light. No consensus had been reached amongst physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation represents reality best. However, two different concepts for the same phenomenon doesn’t really convince about the reliability of the conceptual framework. So what is wrong?

This paper considers the place of reasons in the metaphysics of epistemic normativity and defends a middle ground between two popular extremes in the literature. Against members of the ‘reasons first’ movement, we argue that reasons are not the sole fundamental constituents of epistemic normativity. We suggest instead that the virtue-theoretic property of competence is the key building block. To support this approach, we note that reasons must be possessed to play a role in the analysis of central epistemically normative (...) properties, and argue that the relation of possession must be analyzed in terms of competence. But while we diverge with reasons-firsters on this score, we also distance ourselves from those who deny reasons any important role in epistemology. For we maintain that possessed reasons do help to ground deontic facts in the epistemic domain (e.g., facts about what one epistemically ought to believe, may believe, or is justified in believing). Indeed, we present an argument that the possession of sufficient epistemic reasons is necessary and sufficient for propositional justification, and that proper basing on such reasons yields doxastic justification. But since possession and proper basing are themselves grounded in competence, reasons are not the end of the explanatory road: competence enables them to do their work, putting them—and us—in the middle. (shrink)

There are reports about human experiences of time that are not in line with Einstein’s theory of Special relativity and not in line with the rate of change of the electromagnetic field at the smallest scale size. Some psychological reports describe human experiences about the metric of time that defy physical reality as we know it. These reports question the reliability of our understanding of time.

The ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides reasoned that observable reality is created by an underlying reality. However, an invisible underlying creating reality suggests that we cannot determine its existence with the help of experimental physics. This paper describes an experiment to measure absolute motion that will show that Parmenides concept about an underlying reality is correct. This in spite of Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that is founded on the assumption that it is impossible to detect the absolute motion of (...) objects. (shrink)

This chapter identifies the central issue between Michael Dummett and Donald Davidson on the role of convention in language and argues they are not as far apart in the end as they take themselves to be.

Phenomenological reality seems to be a never ending transformation of observable events. A sequence of successive observable alterations that is called “time”. Actually phenomenological reality exists only “at the front” of the evolving transformations. A state of reality we have termed “now”. However, what is the physical reality of the concept “now”? Does it depends on the properties of the human consciousness or is the state of reality “now” existent everywhere in the universe, even in vacuum space?

The force of gravity is the result of the creation of matter within vacuum space by the structure of the basic quantum fields. The scalar vectors of the flat Higgs field lost their symmetry and the result are scalar vectors from everywhere around in vacuum space that point in the direction of the created matter. Gravity shows to be a push force and is equal to Newtonian gravity (except the concept of a pull force).

As far as we know the scientific search for the nature of reality in Europe started about 2500 years ago in ancient Greek. It was the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides who reasoned that observable reality is created by an underlying reality. There are indications that the ancient Greek concept of the atom was (also) related to the proposed units of the structure of the underlying creating reality of Parmenides. However, an invisible underlying creating reality suggests that we cannot determine its (...) existence with the help of experimental physics. This paper describes an experiment that will show that Parmenides concept about an underlying reality is correct. (shrink)

Changes within observable reality at the lowest level of reality seem to occur in accordance with the probability theory in mathematics. It is quite remarkable that nature itself has chosen the probability theory to arrange all the changes within the structure of the basic quantum fields. This rises a question about the distribution of properties in space and time.

Physical phenomena emerge from the quantum fields everywhere in space. However, not only the phenomena emerge from the quantum fields, the law of the conservation of energy must have its origin from the same spatial structure. This paper describes the relations between the main law of physics, the universal constants and the mathematical structure of the “aggregated” quantum fields.

The explanation of the existence of quantum transfer in vacuum space around celestial bodies under influence of gravitational vectors./.

The use of the model of discrete/quantized space sets the focus on mathematics instead of physics. It benefits the interpretation of observed and measured phenomena at the cosmological scale size. It is an approach that simplifies the problems around the understanding of the properties of the basic quantum fields.

Einstein's theory of Relativity describes variances of the volume of our universe in a model that is known as "spacetime". Quantum field theory describes the volume of our universe as a composition of a limited number of basic quantum fields. Both models exclude each other.

Twenty-first century science faces a dilemma. Two of its well-verified foundation stones - relativity and quantum theory - have proven inconsistent. Resolution of the conflict has resisted improvements in experimental precision leaving some to believe that some fundamental understanding in our world-view may need modification or even radical reform. Employment of the wave-front model of electrodynamics, as a propagation process with a Markov property, may offer just such a clarification.

Recently there is some new interest in understanding the physical reality behind the formalism of quantum mechanics. This paper relates the known “quantum mysteries” of QM with the properties of the underlying structure of discrete space. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5236617.

Our universe shows to be local and non-local. The concept is confusing because in daily live we are not aware of the non-locality of our universe. Actually, in daily live local reality seems to be quite orderly and understandable. But we don’t know why everything is in motion and all our theories in physics are still approximations of physical reality. At least that is what they supposed to be.

The proposed existence of relative time and the curvature of space – both combined into the concept of spacetime – influences the search for an adequate theoretical model that can describe the structure of space in an accurate way. The aim of building space is to develop a quantum theory of gravitation. This paper investigate the theoretical problems that have their origin in the concepts that are at the basis of phenomenological physics.

Forces mediate the differences between local amounts of energy in the universe at all scale sizes and determine the direction of the motion of energy configurations. But forces are not always easy to identify and to describe in a com­prehensive explan­atory model.

The paper is about the basic properties of the structure of space and time. I wrote the very short paper to show that logic and mathematics are enough to determine the basic properties of the field structure of our universe.

In physics there are different opinions about the conceptual interpretation of Einstein’s famous equation that describes the equivalence between mass and energy. It is understandable that the equation has different interpretations because of the different points of view to interpret phenomenological reality. This paper is about the meaning of the equation in relation to the general concept of quantum field theory. In other words, reality is created by the underlying structure of the basic quantum fields.

Physics research has resulted in categories of phenomena and the present theoretical framework in physics of the microcosm, the Standard model, describes a number of fundamental building blocks: elementary particles and elementary forces. It “smells” like classic phenomenological physics so it is difficult to understand how this exhibit of phenomena can be transformed into a unified theory. But there is another way to think about motion, particles and their distinct properties.

Paper about the origin of the wave-particle duality.

Modern physics describes the observable – and proposed – relations between the phenomena in the microcosm and macrocosm. Unfortunately we cannot observe non-local space itself. Therefore we can only determine the dynamics of the mathematical structure of space with the help of the universal properties of phenomenological reality. It has consequences too.

The concept of discrete space can be termed as “the ex­ternal mathematical reality hypothesis”. The concept was already known among the ancient Greek philosophers (≈ 500 BC). Unfortunately the phenomenological point of view has dominated science during more than 2000 years and it is only recently that the concept of discrete space gets “tangible” attention again in philosophy and theoretical physics. Although the model de­scribes the existence of the universal conservation laws, constants and principles in a convincing way, the re­lation (...) between phenomenological reality and the geo­metrical description of discrete space is difficult to ima­gine for everyone who is only familiar with phenomeno­logical reality. The purpose of this paper is to describe some easy to imagine properties of discrete space. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5498120. (shrink)

Quantized space creates phenomenological reality but quantized space isn’t comparable with our phenomenological related concepts. To understand quantized space we must change our phenomenological point of view for the all-inclusive point of view. The latter shows that tessellation and concentration are geometrical based mechanism that are responsible for the creation of observable reality in our universe.

Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity was once the leading theory in theoretical physics. Unfortunately the theory describes macroscopic reality without a clear link with the the microcosm in respect to the properties of spacetime. However the theory of General Relativity has proved to predict macroscopic phenomena in a very accurate way. Nowadays most theoretical physicists use the conceptual framework of quantum theory. So it is not surprisingly that the question about the “true nature” of spacetime becomes very intrigue.

During the 20th century there were a couple of scientists who announced the observation of exceptional heat during the electrolysis of water with the help of Palladium electrodes. In spite of the opinion of the community of nuclear physicists that low energy generated nuclear fusion is a hoax there is a lot of research to understand and create the observed emission of exceptional electromagnetic radiation. This paper explains with the help of the concept of quantized space the simple mechanism that (...) is responsible for the decrease of the Coulomb force of Hydrogen nuclei, established by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. (shrink)

The ancient Greek philosophers – like Parmenides – reasoned that observable reality cannot exist by itself. It has to be a creation of an underlying reality. An all-in­clusive existence that has a structure because observable reality shows structure at every scale size. Although observable reality is involved in a continuous transformation too. If our concept about the relation between phenomenological reality and the creating underlying reality is correct, the unification of the properties of phenomenological reality is part of an enveloping (...) mathematical model. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5457368. (shrink)

The paper questioned the empiric method if the aim is to unify all the conflicting concepts in physics.

Phenomenological reality is created by the underlying structure of the basis quantum fields and not the opposite. In cosmology this isn’t the leading concept. Cosmologists share a different concept, the Standard cosmological model. Unfortunately, the general concept of quantum field theory doesn’t predict the expansion of space and the concentration of all the energy of the universe in one little spot. The paper describes the consequences.

Observations are restricted to the mutual relations between observable phenomena. That is why modern physics is founded on phenomenological physics. Nevertheless, the theoretical framework of phenomenological physics – the description of the basic components and the underlying structure like laws, universal constants and principles – is essential to determine the implications of the basic properties and structure of quantized space.