Robert Wright, Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary, interrogates prominent physicist and ‘new atheist’ Lawrence Krauss on the origins of the universe, quantum weirdness, and the limits of scientific knowledge.
LAWRENCE KRAUSS is director of the Origins Project and Professor of Physics at Arizona State University. He has won numerous international awards and is the only physicist to have received the top awards from all three U.S. Physics Societies. He is the author of over 300 scientific publications and is also the author of 9 books including bestsellers The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing. Krauss has recently delved into the film world as executive producer and subject of The Unbelievers, a documentary film that discusses science and reason. He has dedicated his time, throughout his career, to issues of science and society and has helped spearhead national efforts to educate the public about science, ensure sound public policy, and defend science against attacks at a variety of levels. In 2015 Krauss was named Humanist of the Year.
ROBERT WRIGHT is the author, most recently, of The Evolution of God, which was a New York Times bestseller and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His other books include The Moral Animal, which The New York Times Book Review named one of the ten best books of 1994, and Nonzero, which Bill Clinton called “astonishing” and instructed White House staff members to read. In 2009 Wright was named by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the top 100 global thinkers. Wright has written for The Atlantic, The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Foreign Policy, and the op-ed pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times. His books have been translated into more than a dozen languages, and his awards include the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism. Wright is Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York, and is editor-in-chief of the websites Bloggingheads.tv and MeaningofLife.tv.
This event is part of “Contentions,” an interview and debate series hosted by Robert Wright, Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary. Through conversations with prominent intellectuals, “Contentions” examines the relationship between science and spiritual questions.
Tentative Schedule for MAPS, 2016 Spring (more details soon):
Feb 23. 4:10-6:00pm @ Columbia University. Jacob Barandes and David Kagan (Harvard). Topic: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
Abstract: The language of random variables makes possible a formal analogy between classical probability theory and quantum theory that better highlights their key similarities and differences. I’ll use this formulation to clarify the underlying problems that have long obstructed the development of a satisfactory interpretation of quantum theory, suggest changes in how we introduce students to quantum theory, discuss important new requirements for future work on quantum foundations, provide a helpful classification scheme for the various prominent interpretations, and motivate a novel “minimal” modal interpretation. This new interpretation is minimal in the sense that its fundamental ingredients are only those that either have clear counterparts in classical physics or are familiar from the traditional formulation of quantum theory. I’ll explain how the minimal modal interpretation provides every quantum system with both a definite ontology as well as approximate ontological dynamics ensuring the stability of that ontology through time, whether the system is closed or open and whether the system is in a pure state or in a highly entangled improper mixture. The rules governing the ontological dynamics are based on a class of newly discovered quantum conditional probabilities whose detailed properties I will discuss in depth. I’ll conclude with a summary of open questions and implications for issues of importance to the philosophy of physics.
Mar 22. 4:30-6:30pm @ NYU. Laura Franklin-Hall (NYU). Topic: TBA.
Apr 26. 4:30-6:30pm @ NYU. Lev Vaidman (Tel Aviv). Topic: Many-Worlds QM.
May 3. 5-7pm @ Columbia. Collin Rice (Lycoming). Topic: TBA.
May 10. 3:00-6:30pm @ NYU. Mini Workshop on Philosophy of Physics: (1) Elizabeth Miller (Yale) & Ned Hall (Harvard), and (2) Angelo Bassi (Trieste). Topics: TBA.
JOSHUA MASON (West Chester University of Pennsylvania)
“Cognitive Linguistics and Cultural Gulfs: From Embodied Metaphors to Responsible Generalizations”
An ongoing debate in comparative research is about whether we should see cultural diversities as manifestations of essential differences or as superficial variations on a universal blueprint. Edward Slingerland has pointed to cognitive linguistics and the use of embodied metaphors to emphasize the universality of concept formation and cognition across cultures. He suggests that this should quiet the “cultural essentialists” who take fundamental differences in eastern and western thinking as their starting points. Michael Puett has also leveled a critique of cultural essentialism in support of a presuppositionless approach, and Slingerland’s conclusions seem to offer him support. However, I will argue that even if all modern humans are broadly similar in metaphor use and cognitive processes, research in the humanities must continue to account for the differences implied by the particular metaphors employed and emphasized in diverse traditions. I contend that responsible hermeneutic practice does this through provisional, yet indispensable, generalizations. A starting point which recognizes the existence of cultural gulfs will facilitate, not vitiate, future advances in cross-cultural understanding.
We are excited to share with you our upcoming lineup of speakers:
February 26: Joshua Mason (West Chester University)
March 18: Harvey Lederman (NYU)
April 8: Shigenori Nagatomo (Temple University)
April 29: Sara McClintock (Emory University)
We will provide more information regarding the topic of each speaker’s
presentation as the semester progresses. We hope to see you all at what
promises to be a semester of discussion and engagement.
We are excited to share with you our upcoming lineup of speakers:
February 26: Joshua Mason (West Chester University)
March 18: Harvey Lederman (NYU)
April 8: Shigenori Nagatomo (Temple University)
April 29: Sara McClintock (Emory University)
We will provide more information regarding the topic of each speaker’s
presentation as the semester progresses. We hope to see you all at what
promises to be a semester of discussion and engagement.
Casey McCoy, Department of Philosophy, UCSD
Date: Tuesday, April 5
Time: 4:00-6:00 pm
Location: Room 716, Department of Philosophy, Columbia University
Physicists and philosophers have occasionally advanced arguments concerning the probabilities of possible universes. Although it may seem dubious to treat the entire universe as a random event, an appealing approach to justifying and interpreting cosmological probabilities is to extrapolate successful applications of probability in physics, such as statistical mechanics, to the universe. I argue, however, that adapting successful strategies in statistical mechanics to cosmology runs aground on several serious problems. I examine in particular two cases: adding probabilities to general relativity and treating the universe as a statistical mechanical system.
There will be a dinner after the talk. If you are interested, please send an email with “Dinner” in the heading to nyphilsci@gmail.com as soon as possible so that I can make the reservation for the appropriate number of people (please note that all faculty and grad students are welcome, but only the speaker’s dinner will be covered). If you have any other questions, please email eddy.chen@rutgers.edu
——————————————–
Upcoming talks at Metro Area Philosophy of Science:
Apr 12. 4:30-6:30pm @ NYU Silver 621. Laura Franklin-Hall (NYU). Topic: TBA.
Apr 26. 4:30-6:30pm @ NYU Silver 621. Lev Vaidman (Tel Aviv). Topic: Many-Worlds QM.
[Cancelled] May 3. 5-7pm @ Columbia. Collin Rice (Lycoming). Topic: TBA.
May 10. 3:00-6:30pm @ NYU location TBA. Mini Workshop on Philosophy of Physics: (1) Elizabeth Miller (Yale) & Ned Hall (Harvard), and (2) Angelo Bassi (Trieste). Topics: TBA.
I’ll also post updates and info on this website; Massimo Pigliucci (CUNY) has been managing the MAPS Facebook page.
SHIGENORI NAGATOMO (Temple University)
With responses from:
GRAHAM PRIEST (CUNY Graduate Center)
Please join us at Columbia University’s Religion Department on FRIDAY, APRIL 8th at 5:30PM for his lecture entitled:
“The Logic of Not: An Invitation to an Holistic Mode of Thinking”
This presentation extends an invitation to an holistic mode of understanding to those who are concerned with current global situations. It thematically deals with the logic that appears in the sutra called the Diamond Sutra which belongs to the prajñāpāaramitā literature of Mahayana Buddhism. This logic is called “logic of not” because a negation appears in the formulation of the idea of identity as is expressed in the following: “A is not A, therefore it is A.” This logic cuts against the grain of the assumptions which the mode of thinking predominant in the Western philosophical tradition accepts as its modus operandi, namely the conceptual paradigm of the “either-or ego-logical dualistic standpoint.” This presentation argues that this paradigm generates a problem of fragmentation, which we take to be the root of many of the problems we face today, by analyzing the phrases such as “either-or,” “dualistic” and “ego-logical.” It then turns to an analysis of “the logic of not” by showing how it differs from Aristotle’s logic, while providing the philosophical reasons why the Diamond Sutra formulates its understanding of reality in terms of “the logic of not.” With this clarification, the presentation discusses how a transparency of mind and the idea of interdependency are necessary for achieving an holistic perspective, i.e., to understand things holistically. This mode of thinking will be effective to correct the problem of fragmentation, for example, in dealing with such topics as I knowing myself, the I-thou relationship, and environmental concerns.
…
April 29: Sara McClintock (Emory University)
We will provide more information regarding the topic of each speaker’s
presentation as the semester progresses. We hope to see you all at what
promises to be a semester of discussion and engagement.
THE COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY
Welcomes:
SARA MCCLINTOCK (Emory University)
With responses from:
THOMAS A. LEWIS (Brown University)
Please join us at Columbia University’s Religion Department on FRIDAY, APRIL 29th at 5:30PM for her lecture entitled:
“Rehabilitating the Conventional via the Transactional: An Experiment in Madhyamaka Thought Inspired by Kamalaśīla”
Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy is renowned for its theory of two truths (satya-dvaya), typically represented in English as conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). The ultimate truth is that all things are empty (śūnya) of any intrinsic nature (svabhāva), while the conventional truth refers to the misleading yet nevertheless useful “truths” according to which people function in the world. Nāgārjuna, the father of Madhyamaka thought, famously explains that without relying on the conventional truth, the ultimate truth cannot be revealed. Scholarly work on Madhyamaka has long shown a fascination with emptiness, the ultimate truth, while interest in the conventional truth has been comparatively meager. This is starting to change. In a recent volume, a collective of scholars calling themselves the Cowherds has argued for the importance of conventional truth and for the need both to take it seriously and to get it right. In this paper, I offer a new way of thinking about conventional truth inspired by my reading of the works of Kamalaśīla, an eighth-century Madhyamaka polymath, who is known for taking conventional truth extremely seriously. In this talk, I will consider some elements of Kamalaśīla’s approach to conventional truth, arguing that, along with his teacher Śāntarakṣita, he offers tools for rehabilitating the conventional through an emphasis on the complex material, discursive, and ideational transactions (vyavahāra) that together create the conditions for truth. Considering Kamalaśīla’s approach to the problem of intrinsic nature (svabhāva) for the production of conventional truth, I show that for Kamalaśīla such truth is best understood as deeply transactional in nature. Shifting from a discourse of truth to one of reality, we see that conventional truth is itself a transactional reality, and as such can never be stable but must constantly arise anew. I close with some reflections on how Kamalaśīla’s transactional approach to the conventional may offer Madhyamaka greater potential for interchange with science (via enactive theories of cognition for example) and philosophy (via the theories of thinkers like Dewey and Foucault). Whether Kamalaśīla gets the conventional right or not, my goal in this talk is to begin to reveal his perspective as an alternate to the more typical theories of the conventional truth—theories that generally ignore the non-discursive conditions of conventional truth—in current Madhyamaka scholarship.
FRIDAY, APRIL 29
5:30-7:30 pm
Rm. 101, 80 Claremont Ave, Columbia University
PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
as our understanding of the universe and its basic building blocks extends to shorter and shorter distances, experiments capable of probing these scales are becoming increasingly difficult to construct. Fundamental particle physics faces a potential crisis: an absence of data at the shortest possible scales. Yet remarkably, even in the absence of experimental data, the requirement of theoretical consistency puts stringent constraints on viable models of fundamental particles and their interactions. In this talk I’ll present some of these constraints and discuss their applications for cosmology, string theory and more.
There will be dinner after the talk. If you are interested, please send an email with “Dinner” in the heading to nyphilsci@gmail.com (please note that all are welcome, but only the speaker’s dinner will be covered). If you have any other questions, please email isaac.wilhelm@rutgers.edu.
==============================
UPCOMING:
Abstract: conventional wisdom holds that since the advent of the first full theories of quantum mechanics in the mid-1920s, the Copenhagen interpretation has been the default interpretation of quantum mechanics, and has enjoyed the support of a majority of physicists ever since. This is not the case. While it is indeed true that a majority of physicists have long professed that they subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, the plain fact of the matter is that there is no single coherent position known as the Copenhagen interpretation, nor has there ever been one. Moreover, none of the positions that go by the name “Copenhagen interpretation” do a good job of solving the measurement problem, the central interpretive problem at the heart of quantum foundations. Nor do they evade the nonlocality that is dictated by Bell’s theorem. In this talk, I will give an overview of the history of the Copenhagen interpretation from 1926 to the present, explain its multiple inconsistencies and failures, and attempt an answer at a persistent puzzle: why does the Copenhagen interpretation remain popular among physicists despite its manifest flaws and the existence of multiple superior alternatives
About the speaker: Adam Becker is the author of What is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics. He has a PhD in physics from the University of Michigan and he is the recipient of an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Book Grant. He is currently a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley’s Office for History of Science and Technology.
Abstract: TBD.
Abstract: TBD.
Abstract: My main aim is to make a remark about the relation between (i) dualities between theories, as `duality’ is understood in physics and (ii) equivalence of theories, as `equivalence’ is understood in logic and philosophy. The remark is that in physics, two theories can be dual, and accordingly get called `the same theory’, though we interpret them as disagreeing—so that they are certainly equivalent, as `equivalent’ is normally understood. So the remark is simple: but, I shall argue, worth stressing—since often neglected.
My argument for this is based on the account of duality by De Haro and myself: which is illustrated here with several examples, from both elementary physics and string theory. Thus I argue that in some examples, including in string theory, two dual theories disagree in their claims about the world.
I also spell out how this remark implies a limitation of proposals (both traditional and recent) to understand theoretical equivalence as either logical equivalence or a weakening of it.
Abstract: TBD.
What we are hoping for is a free, open, wide-ranging and informal conversation about a number of topics that people have lately been thinking more and more about – and that seem likely to play increasingly central roles, over the next several years, in the foundations of physics. These include questions of the emergence/fundamentality of space and time, the philosophical analysis and scientific role of chance, the relationship between physics and agency, and the possibility, desirability and scientific appropriateness of a complete and fundamental theory of nature.
Location: Pupin Hall Theory Center (8th floor), Columbia University.
Directions: Pupin Hall is located at the northwest end of the campus, in between the Northwest Corner building and Schapiro (south side of 120th Street). The Center for Theoretical Physics is located on the left once you arrive on the 8th floor in Pupin Hall.
RSVP: Please send an email to sr3109@columbia.edu if you would like to attend.
Workshop schedule:
Friday October 26, First Session: “Questions of chance”
– 10:00 – 11.15: Lay-of-the-land talk by Barry Loewer (Rutgers): “The metaphysics of laws and chance in physics”
– 11.15 – 11.30: Break
– 11.30 – 1:00: Panel with Jeff Barrett (UCI), Sean Carroll (Caltech), Mario Hubert (Columbia) and Charles Sebens (UCSD)
– 1:00 – 1:30: General Discussion
– 1:30 – 3:00: Lunch in Columbia area
Friday October 26, Second Session: “Physics and agency”
– 3:00- 4:15: Lay-of-the-land talk by Jenann Ismael (Columbia): “Physics and agency: the missing piece of the puzzle”
– 4:15 – 4:30: Break
– 4:30 – 6:00: Panel with David Albert (Columbia), Thomas Blanchard (IWU), Alison Fernandes (Trinity College Dublin) and Michael Strevens (NYU).
– 6:00 – 6:30: General Discussion
– 7:00: Conference Dinner
Saturday October 27, First Session: “The future of space and time”
– 10:00 – 11.15: Lay-of-the-land talk by Carlo Rovelli (Aix-Marseille): “Do we all mean the same, when we say ‘space’ and ‘time’?”
– 11.15 – 11.30: Break
– 11.30 – 1:00: Panel with Gordon Belot (Michigan), Sean Carroll (Caltech), Nick Huggett (UIC) and Jill North (Rutgers)
– 1:00 – 1:30: General Discussion
– 1:30 – 3:00: Lunch in Columbia area
Saturday October 27, Second Session: “Fundamentality and the ultimate aspirations of physics”
– 3:00- 4:15: Lay-of-the-land talk by Kerry McKenzie (UCSD): “Delusions of a final theory: the problem of progress in physics and metaphysics”
– 4:15 – 4:30: Break
– 4:30 – 6:00: Panel with David Albert (Columbia), Michael Miller (Toronto), Rachel Rosen (Columbia) and Porter Williams (USC)
– 6:00 – 6:30: General Discussion
Sponsor: The event is jointly organized by the Department of Philosophy and the Department of Physics at Columbia University, in association with the MA programme in the Philosophical Foundations of Physics. We would like in particular to acknowledge the generous and invaluable support both to the MA programme and to the workshop from Guerman Aliev.
I argue that we do not understand gauge theory as well as we think we do, when boundaries are present. I will briefly explain the conceptual and technical issues that arise at the boundary. I will then propose a tentative resolution, which requires us to think of theories not in space-time, but in field-space.