Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Gabriel Vacariu (2008). Epistemologically Different Worlds. Bucharest University Press.A fundamental error has dominated philosophy and science since ancient times, the assumption of the existence of the 'unicorn-world', that is, the existence of one unique world. In order to avoid this error, it is necessary to replace the unicorn-world with epistemologically different worlds (which presuppose that each class of entities forms a single, unique epistemological world within the same spatio-temporal framework). Within this new framework, we analyze the definition of the “I” in neural (physical) terms and psychological terms and the relationships between the “I” and the other EDWs. Moreover, I show that the majority of “mysteries” like entanglement, non-locality and non-spatiality, are due to the erroneous human thinking presupposition of the “world”, uni-verse in which everything (waves, micro and macro particles) has been situated since Ancient times. The replacement of the “world” with epistemologically different worlds (epistemologically constitutive interactions among classes of epistemologically different entities that belong to epistemologically different worlds) seems to be a better alternative for solving, in fact eliminating, the great mysteries of quantum mechanics.Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |My bibliography
| Export citation | Other links: ub-filosofie.ro | Scholar | At my library 
Similar books and articles
In the debate about the nature and identity of possible worlds, philosophers have neglected the parallel questions about the nature and identity of moments of time. These are not questions about the structure of time in general, but rather about the internal structure of each individual time. Times and worlds share the following structural similarities: both are maximal with respect to propositions (at every world and time, either p or p is true, for every p); both are consistent; both are closed (every modal consequence of a proposition true at a world is also true at that world, and every tense-theoretic consequence of a proposition true at a time is also true at that time); just as there is a unique actual world, there is a unique present moment; and just as a proposition is necessarily true iff true at all worlds, a proposition is eternally true iff true at all times. In this paper, I show that a simple extension of my theory of worlds yields a theory of times in which the above structural similarities between the two are consequences.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: springerlink.com jstor.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: springerlink.com jstor.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ... The article investigates the sceptical challenge from an information-theoretic perspective. Its main goal is to articulate and defend the view that either informational scepticism is radical, but then it is epistemologically innocuous because redundant; or it is moderate, but then epistemologically beneficial because useful. In order to pursue this cooptation strategy, the article is divided into seven sections. Section 1 sets up the problem. Section 2 introduces Borel numbers as a convenient way to refer uniformly to (the data that individuate) different possible worlds. Section 3 adopts the Hamming distance between Borel numbers as a metric to calculate the distance between possible worlds. In Sects. 4 and 5, radical and moderate informational scepticism are analysed using Borel numbers and Hamming distances, and shown to be either harmless (extreme form) or actually fruitful (moderate form). Section 6 further clarifies the approach by replying to some potential objections. In the conclusion, the Peircean nature of the overall approach is briefly discussed.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... In Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, where quantum measurements are seen as decoherence events, inexact decoherence may let large worlds mangle the memories of observers in small worlds, creating a cutoff in observable world measure. I solve a growth–drift–diffusion–absorption model of such a mangled worlds scenario, and show that it reproduces the Born probability rule closely, though not exactly. Thus, inexact decoherence may allow the Born rule to be derived in a many-worlds approach via world counting, using a finite number of worlds and no new fundamental physics.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
| | Scholar | More options ... Let’s fix some terminology at the start. A world (or possible world – for me, the ‘possible’ is redundant) is, first, an individual, not a set or class; second, a particular, not a property or universal; third, concrete in this sense: it is fully determinate in all qualitative respects; and, fourth, a maximal interrelated whole: each world is internally unified, and isolated from every other world.1 There is at least one world, the world we are part of. It is an actual world, the actual world if there are no “island universes.”2 Worlds that are not actual (if any) are merely possible. A realist about possible worlds believes that there is a plenitudinous plurality of worlds: whenever something is possible – for example, that donkeys talk, or that pigs fly – there is a world in which it is true.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: blackwell-synergy.com dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: blackwell-synergy.com dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Analytic philosophers usually think about modality in terms of possible worlds. According to the possible worlds framework, a proposition is necessary if it is true according to all possible worlds; it is possible if it is true according to some possible world. There are as many possible worlds as there are ways the actual world might be. Only one world is actual.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: otago.ac.nz | Scholar | More options ...
| | Other links: otago.ac.nz | Scholar | More options ... In their article "On What It Takes To Be a World", David Albert and Jeffrey Barrett raise "a rather urgent question about what the proponents of a many-worlds interpretation [of quantum mechanics] can possibly mean by the term 'worlds' " (1995, 35). I argue that their considerations do not translate into an argument against the Many-Worlds conception of a world unless one requires that the dispositions that measurement devices display through the outcomes they record be explainable in terms of facts particular to the worlds in which those devices do their recording. Granting that their conception of a world takes away the possibility of such an explanation, a Many-Worlds proponent can claim that the Universal quantum state, which does not represent a fact about any world in particular, is enough to ground the dispositions of measurement devices.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ... This book is about the epistemologically different worlds (hyperverse) in relationship with the "I", the mind-body problem (Frith, Llinas), Bechtel's mechanisms, Clark's extended mind, Bickle's molecular and cellular cognition, Kauffman's life, quantum mechanics, gravity, hyperspace vs. hyperverse
.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... The reason why, since Descartes, nobody has found a solution to the mind–body problem seems to be that the problem itself is a false or pseudo-problem. The discussion has proceeded within a pre-Cartesian conceptual framework which itself is a source of the difficulty. Dualism and all its alternatives have preserved the same pre-Cartesian conceptual framework even while denying Descartes’ dualism. In order to avoid this pseudo-problem, I introduce a new perspective with three elements: the subject, the observed object, and the conditions of observation (given by the internal and external tools of observation). On this new perspective, because of the conditions of observation, the mind and the brain belong to epistemologically different worlds.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: springerlink.com ingentaconnect.com jstor.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: springerlink.com ingentaconnect.com jstor.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ... An old philosophical problem, the mind-body problem, has not been yet solved by philosophers or scientists.
Even if in cognitive neuroscience has been a stunning development in the last 20 years, the mind-body problem
remained unsolved. Even if the majority of researchers in this domain accept the identity theory from an ontological
viewpoint,
many
of
them
reject
this
position
from
an epistemological
viewpoint.
In
this context,
I
consider
that
it
is
quite
possible
the
framework
of
this
problem
to
be
wrong
and
this
is
the
main
reason
the
problem
could not be solved. I offer an alternative, the epistemologically different world’s perspective, which replaces
the world or the universe. In this new context, the mind-body problem becomes a pseudo-problem.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... It is about the pure theoretical system of EDWs (almost without applications to any particular sciences - cognitive science, physics or biology). I constructed the conditions of the possibility for any EDWs (that exist or possible to exist) given by 13 propositions that represent the axiomatic-hyperontological framework in 13 parts. In general, these propositions refer to the abstract entities andtheir interactions. Being is the only entity that is an epistemological world. In this short book, I deal with the hyperontology of the hyperverse, no more or less than “pure philosophy".
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Discussion of Gabriel Vacariu, Epistemologically Different Worlds
 Back
All discussions
Start a new thread
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.
