I argue that the contemporary interplay of cosmology and particle physics in their joint effort to understand the processes at work during the first moments of the big bang has important implications for understanding the nature of lawhood. I focus on the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking responsible for generating the masses of certain particles. This phenomenon presents problems for the currently fashionable Dretske-Tooley-Armstrong theory and strongly favors a rival nomic ontology of causal powers.

The success of deep learning in natural language processing raises intriguing questions about the nature of linguistic meaning and ways in which it can be processed by natural and artificial systems. One such question has to do with subword segmentation algorithms widely employed in language modeling, machine translation, and other tasks since 2016. These algorithms often cut words into semantically opaque pieces, such as ‘period’, ‘on’, ‘t’, and ‘ist’ in ‘period|on|t|ist’. The system then represents the resulting segments in a dense (...) vector space, which is expected to model grammatical relations among them. This representation may in turn be used to map ‘period|on|t|ist’ (English) to ‘par|od|ont|iste’ (French). Thus, instead of being modeled at the lexical level, translation is reformulated more generally as the task of learning the best bilingual mapping between the sequences of subword segments of two languages; and sometimes even between pure character sequences: ‘p|e|r|i|o|d|o|n|t|i|s|t’ → ‘p|a|r|o|d|o|n|t|i|s|t|e’. Such subword segmentations and alignments are at work in highly efficient end-to-end machine translation systems, despite their allegedly opaque nature. The computational value of such processes is unquestionable. But do they have any linguistic or philosophical plausibility? I attempt to cast light on this question by reviewing the relevant details of the subword segmentation algorithms and by relating them to important philosophical and linguistic debates, in the spirit of making artificial intelligence more transparent and explainable. (shrink)

Neural machine translation (NMT) is one of the success stories of deep learning and artificial intelligence. Revolutionary innovations in the computational architectures made in 2015–2017 have led to dramatic improvements in the quality of machine translation (MT) and changed the field forever. Some professional translators welcome these changes with enthusiasm, others less so. But everyone has to deal with them. Historically, the relationship between human translation and MT has been uneasy and complicated, but an increasing number of players in both (...) fields are now coming to view it as synergistic. -/- OPUS-CAT is a collection of machine translation software based on a Windows implementation of Marian NMT—a stable production-ready neural machine translation framework used in many industrial and research applications. It can be installed on your PC, fine-tuned to specialized translation domains, and integrated into CAT tools. (shrink)

The author’s studies in the philosophy of science, culminating in this book, were inspired by his previous research in the domains of classical and quantum gravity. In fact it was the need to bring some order in the family of modern classical theories of gravitation and to build up the appropriate conceptual foundations of quantum gravity , that forced the author to create his own methodological model of theory change, which he applies rather successfully to the most controversial case study, (...) the Lorentz-Einstein transition. (shrink)

When do objects at different times compose a further object? This is the question of diachronic composition. The universalist answers, ‘under any conditions whatsoever’. Others argue for restrictions on diachronic composition: composition occurs only when certain conditions are met. Recently, some philosophers have argued that restrictions on diachronic compositions are motivated by our best physical theories. In Persistence and Spacetime and elsewhere, Yuri Balashov argues that diachronic compositions are restricted in terms of causal connections between object stages. In a (...) recent article, Nikk Effingham argues that the standard objections to views that endorse restrictions on composition do not apply to a view that restricts composition according to compliance with the laws of nature. On the face of it, such restrictions on diachronic composition preserve our common-sense ontology while eliminating from it scientifically revisionary objects that travel faster than the speed of light. I argue that these attempts to restrict diachronic composition by appealing to either causal or nomological constraints face insurmountable difficulties within the context of special relativity. I discuss how the universalist should best respond to Hudson’s argument for superluminal objects, and in doing so, I present and defend a new sufficient condition for motion that does not entail that such objects are in superluminal motion. 1 Introduction2 Diachronic Composition3 Diachronic Composition and Superluminal Objects4 Restricting Diachronic Composition5 Causal and Nomological Restrictions on Composition in a Relativistic Context6 Superluminal Objects and Motion7 Conclusion. (shrink)

A brief introductory note to the Monist issue on "Temporal Parts", setting the background for the eight papers included in the rest of the issue (by Y. Balashov, B. Brogaard, K. Fine, M. Heller, R. LePoidevin, J. Parsons, P. M. Simons, and P. van Inwagen).

El tema central de esta tesis de maestría en filosofía de la ciencia es el de la naturaleza de la persistencia a través del tiempo, en el contexto de nuestras mejores teorías físicas acerca del espacio-tiempo. Este problema involucra uno de los conceptos centrales en nuestra comprensión científica del mundo físico, a saber, el concepto de tiempo. La forma usual en que se plantea el problema de la persistencia involucra ciertas nociones que están conectadas con la física, pero estos supuestos (...) rara vez suelen ser formulados de manera explícita, empero, extrapolar las disputas filosóficas en torno a la naturaleza de la persistencia al contexto de espacios newtonianos, galileanos y relativistas (minkowski) no es una tarea trivial. Estos espacios son algunos de los espacios fundamentales donde ocurre la dinámica de los objetos físicos en física clásica. -/- En esta investigación he perseguido diferentes objetivos que vinculan el problema de la persistencia, las diferentes tesis que buscan resolver el problema y las estructuras espacio-temporales postuladas nuestras mejores teorías físicas: -/- 1. Articular el problema de la persistencia, así como varios supuestos de metafísica y filosofía de la ciencia indispensables para plantear la discusión, así como para formular mi solución. 2. Introducir a detalle las diversas estructuras-espacio temporales que, en nuestras mejores teorías de física, albergan a los objetos materiales persistentes. 3. Introducir herramientas formales que permitan analizar la relación de todo-parte en contextos temporales (mereología), así como las propiedades formales de la relación de ubicación que mantienen los objetos materiales con las regiones espacio-temporales. 4. Reformular las posiciones, con estas herramientas, en las estructuras espacio-temporales previamente mencionadas. 5. Ofrecer una serie de argumentos que favorecen lo que más adelante caracterizo como “perdurantismo de ubicación”, desde dos posiciones metafísicas: el unitismo, la tesis de que el tiempo y el espacio son aspectos de una sustancia más fundamental, el espacio-tiempo y el supersustantivismo, la tesis de que el espacio-tiempo y sus propiedades son suficientes para dar soporte a una ontología realista en el caso de nuestras mejores teorías físicas. -/- De esos cinco puntos me ocupo, en ese orden, en los cinco capítulos de esta investigación, con el capítulo V siendo mi contribución original a la literatura especializada sobre el tema. En los primeros capítulos (I, II) el enfoque es en presentar una serie de posiciones y asunciones estructurales en filosofía y física. En los capítulos intermedios (III, IV), hay también una presentación de posiciones filosóficas dominantes en la literatura (Balashov, 2010; Gibson y Pooley, 2006; Gilmore, 2008, 2014; Calosi y Fano, 2015; Saucedo, 2011) que acompañan a una discusión de elementos formales de mereología y postulados estructurales de las teorías naturalizadas de persistencia a través del tiempo. El capítulo V, que es mi contribución original a la discusión filosófica, integra todo lo discutido en los capítulos anteriores en una serie de argumentos que presento en favor del perdurantismo de ubicación. (shrink)