Online research in philosophy

The purpose of this paper is to propose an extension to Lee Smolin's hypothesis that our own universe belongs to a population of universes which have evolved by natural selection. Smolin's hypothesis explains why the parameters of physics possess the values we observe them to possess, but depends upon the contingent fact that the universe is a quantum relativistic universe. It is proposed that the prior existence of a quantum relativistic universe can itself be explained by the notion of evolution towards stable ('rigid') mathematical structures.

After introducing a range of mechanistic theories of causality and some of the problems they face, I argue that while there is a decisive case against a purely mechanistic analysis, a viable theory of causality must incorporate mechanisms as an ingredient. I describe one way of providing an analysis of causality which reaps the rewards of the mechanistic approach without succumbing to its pitfalls.

We suggest a new framework for the Weyl-Feferman predicativist program by constructing a formal predicative set theory P ZF which resembles ZF , and is suitable for mechanization. The basic idea is that the predicatively acceptable instances of the comprehension schema are those which determine the collections they define in an absolute way, independent of the extension of the “surrounding universe”. The language of P ZF is type-free, and it reflects real mathematical practice in making an extensive use of statically defined abstract set terms. Another important feature of P ZF is that its underlying logic is ancestral logic (i.e. the extension of first-order logic with a transitive closure operation).

When it is suggested that the fine-tuning of the universe for life provides evidence for a cosmic designer, the multiple-universe hypothesis is often presented as an alternative. Some philosophers object that the multipleuniverse hypothesis fails to explain why this universe is fine-tuned for life. We suggest the “This Universe” objection is no better than the “This Planet” objection. We also fault proponents of the “This Universe” objection for presupposing that we could not have existed in any other universe and that the values of the free parameters of the Universe could have been different. Lastly, we reflect on why fine-tuning for life needs explaining.

phenomena that are hallmarks of what it is to be human free will whether or not the universe is deterministic, many [1,2,4,26]. There is now a widespread and industrious people think that freedom can yet be salvaged if the scientific community, whose aim is to understand the universe is indeterministic, for they favor a Libertarian mechanisms underlying these phenomena [7,9,10, account which posits an agent as an uncaused cause 27–32]. The underlying worry is that those things that [17,18]. In that case, trouble arises if the universe is once seemed to be forever beyond the reach of science deterministic. might soon succumb to it: neuroscience will lead us to see the ‘universe within’ as just part and parcel of the.

Incompatibilism, the view that free will and determinism are incompatible, subsists on two widely accepted, but deeply confused, theses concerning possibility and causation: (1) in a deterministic universe, one can never truthfully utter the sentence "I could have done otherwise," and (2) in such universes, one can never really take credit for having caused an event, since in fact all events have been predetermined by conditions during the universe's birth. Throughout the free will.