Quantum Theory, similar to Relativity Theory, requires a new concept of space-time, imposed by a universal constant. While velocity of lightcnot being infinite calls for a redefinition of space-time on large and cosmological scales, quantization of action in terms of a finite, i.e. non vanishing, universal constanthrequires a redefinition of space-time on very small scales. Most importantly, the classical notion of “time”, as one common continuous time variable and nature evolving continuously “in time”, has to be replaced by an infinite (...) manifold of transition rates for discontinuous quantum transitions. The fundamental laws of quantum physics, commutation relations and quantum equations of motion, resulted from Max Born’s recognition of the basic principle of quantum physics:To each change in nature corresponds an integer number of quanta of action. Action variables may only change by integer values ofh, requiring all other physical quantities to change by discrete steps, “quantum jumps”. The mathematical implementation of this principle led to commutation relations and quantum equations of motion. The notion of “point” in space-time looses its physical significance; quantum uncertainties of time, position, just as any other physical quantity, are necessary consequences of quantization of action. (shrink)

One of Weatherson's main goals is to drive home a methodological point: We shouldn't be looking for deductive arguments for or against relativism – we should instead be evaluating inductive arguments designed to show that either relativism or some alternative offers the best explanation of some data. Our focus in Chapter Two on diagnostics for shared content allegedly encourages the search for deductive arguments and so does more harm than good. We have no methodological slogan of our own to offer. (...) Part of what we were trying to do was to clearly articulate what the relevant issues even are. Often relativism is characterized in a way that is offhand and sloppy. The relativist, we are told, accepts 'disquotational truth' for various kinds of claims but denies that they are 'true simpliciter'. What exactly is going on here? Do the relevant distinctions even make sense? Before engaging in various abductive manoevers we need to get much clearer about what it is that we are trying to argue for and against. That said we are perfectly happy with the kind of inductive enterprise that Weatherson sketches. For our part, we were fully aware (and indeed explicit) that the 'agreement' diagnostic does not ‘deductively’ settle all of the relevant disputes. A significant part of Chapter Four is dedicated to something in the vicinity of Weatherson's project. Note, indeed, that our diagnostics are even stated using the ideology of 'providing evidence' – hardly the basis for a straightforwardly deductive argument for or against relativism. Finally, though, we should point out that we are not hostile to deductive arguments against relativism. A philosopher's evidence is theory-laden and in part owes itself to epistemic powers that his or her opponents may not acknowledge. In short, their evidence may not always have the hallmarks of 'evidence neutrality' --- evidence that their opponents would recognize as such. We are perfectly open to there being compelling deductive arguments against relativism from such evidence.. (shrink)

Professor H. James Birx shows how the never-ending controversy of human evolution came to be. He details the events that caused thinkers like Charles Darwin to develop his theory of evolution, and what ideas caused some people to reconcile a somewhat mystical theology with a concrete model of the universe. He tells you how Darwin's work infuriated everybody from "God-fearing" Christians to the church heirarchies. Birx explains how scientific advances and philosophical arguments have made beliefs about divine intervention as the (...) origin of man a moot point. He shows how creationism ignores proven scientific facts, and how human evolution remains a much sounder truth. You'll read how some western religions are starting to accept evolution as the process which creates life on earth. You'll also learn why scientific evolution and creationism have not been accepted together and how bold attempts to merge the two ideas have failed miserably. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a rapid escalation in the use of telepsychiatry. Herein we revisit some of the ethical issues regarding its use, including patient benefice, distributive justice, privacy, and autonomy. Based on these considerations we would hold that telepsychiatry is a vital aspect of providing psychiatric care, and ethically should be offered as a format for treatment, likely beyond the pandemic period. Investigative and advocacy efforts will need to continue to determine its exact role within psychiatric care, and (...) expand its availability for those most in need. (shrink)

Byzantine Empire; economic and social conditions; history.

Vol. 7, n. 2, December 2023 (special issue).

Gareth Evans' proposal, as amended by Steven Neale –that a definite pronoun with a quantifiedantecedent that does not bind it has the sense ofa definite description – has been challenged inthe singular case by appeal to counter-examplesinvolving failure of the uniqueness condition forthe legitimacy of a singular description. Thischallenge is here extended to the plural.Counter-examples are provided by cases in which aplural description `the Fs' does not denote,despite the propriety of the use of `they' or`them' it is to replace, because (...) of failure ofcumulativeness. A noncumulative predicate isnot distributive, and conditions for thelegitimacy of `the Fs' designed to accommodatenondistributive `Fs' are given in the context ofa two sorted theory with generalized quantifiers.Failure of cumulativeness is not to be confusedwith failure of maximality as Neale and othersdefine it. If not all Fs are Gs, `The Fs are Gs'is false; but it does not follow that `the Fs' isillegitimate; and if `Fs' is distributive. it isso only if there are no Fs. These differencesgranted, I give a partial defense of theEvans–Neale proposal from deficiencies in analternative based on the views of P. T.Geach. (shrink)

Gareth Evans'' proposal, as amended by Steven Neale –that a definite pronoun with a quantifiedantecedent that does not bind it has the sense ofa definite description – has been challenged inthe singular case by appeal to counter-examplesinvolving failure of the uniqueness condition forthe legitimacy of a singular description. Thischallenge is here extended to the plural.Counter-examples are provided by cases in which aplural description `the Fs'' does not denote,despite the propriety of the use of `they'' or`them'' it is to replace, because (...) of failure ofcumulativeness. A noncumulative predicate isnot distributive, and conditions for thelegitimacy of `the Fs'' designed to accommodatenondistributive `Fs'' are given in the context ofa two sorted theory with generalized quantifiers.Failure of cumulativeness is not to be confusedwith failure of maximality as Neale and othersdefine it. If not all Fs are Gs, `The Fs are Gs''is false; but it does not follow that `the Fs'' isillegitimate; and if `Fs'' is distributive. it isso only if there are no Fs. These differencesgranted, I give a partial defense of theEvans–Neale proposal from deficiencies in analternative based on the views of P. T.Geach. (shrink)

The ocean of academic knowledge is now so wide and so deep that university administrators must rely on the incumbents in their departments to identify and train new hires. This is in direct contrast to a sports team, where management can readily identify new talent. It follows that aging academics get to enjoy tenure, whereas older athletes do not. (Published Online February 8 2007).