https://arxiv.org/api/U+ogNO2LYXb7F+lwvAfUGk8PkCQ 2026-03-22T18:48:26Z 5537 90 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12926v2 2026-01-21T16:07:14Z

The 1974 papers by Ostriker et al. [1974] and Einasto et al. [1974] are considered by many to be pivotal in establishing the epistemic foundations for the dark matter hypothesis. From a theory confirmation point of view, the circumstances surrounding this pivot are difficult to reconcile with common approaches to epistemic support. First, the papers did not introduce any new observations. Second, they synthesized existing data from two separate contexts to construct a hypothesis under which the joint data became evidentially relevant. Third, this synthesis was motivated in part by non-empirical reasons. The situation excludes both temporal novelty and use novelty because already known data was used in the construction of the hypothesis. Yet, the papers are widely regarded as epistemically transformative. I argue that a Bayesian can model the epistemic significance of the 1974 papers without concession. By recognizing how the papers reconfigured the existing data to bear on a missing mass hypothesis, a novel epistemic aspect emerges. By introducing a shared halo parameterization, they made the previously disjoint data mutually constrained, thereby changing their evidential role. I develop this idea through two concepts - evidential reconfiguration and structural novelty - leveraged through Myrvold's Bayesian account of unification. The result makes Bayesianism faithful to the inferential practices in this significant part of scientific history, explains how the 1974 papers strengthened the evidential case for dark matter, and expands the Bayesian toolbox with a way to treat novel structure as epistemologically salient.

2025-12-15T02:24:10Z Simon Allzén http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18810v1 2026-01-20T01:22:22Z

This paper argues that several canonical puzzles in quantum mechanics, including spin measurement, the double slit, entanglement correlations, and Wigner's friend, share a common origin in a semantic error and the illicit promotion of interaction conditional outcomes to intrinsic properties. I introduce four principles that license only configuration relative predication, grounding outcomes in physical measurement geometry while preserving objectivity. Applying these principles uniformly dissolves each puzzle without new physics or ad hoc interpretive machinery. Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem are reframed not as dynamical mysteries but as constraints on permissible explanatory structure, evidence that intrinsic-outcome semantics is incompatible with empirical reality. The result is a relational objectivity that avoids both naive property realism and observer subjectivism.

2026-01-20T01:22:22Z Jonathon Sendall http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14322v1 2026-01-19T23:43:06Z

In a brief reflection on the principles of human society, P. A. M. Dirac articulated a structural tension between two widely affirmed norms: that it is good and natural for parents to improve the prospects of their own children, and that justice requires that all children have equal opportunities in life. These principles, each compelling on its own, cannot be fully realized together. This paper reconstructs Dirac's dilemma, connects it to the dynamics of compounding advantage and inheritance, and situates it within the broader history of political philosophy, including the work of Rawls, Dworkin, Cohen, Brighouse and Swift, Nozick, Murphy and Nagel, and others. The paper argues that attempts to eliminate the resulting injustices entirely risk damaging the non--zero--sum structures that generate general prosperity, and defends a position of "managed inequality": a robust social floor and real mobility, combined with limits on extreme dynastic accumulation and an explicit acceptance of some residual, but constrained, inherited advantage.

2026-01-19T23:43:06Z 7 pages Karl Svozil http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13109v1 2026-01-19T14:49:50Z

Feynman famously said that single-particle interference is ``a phenomenon which is impossible to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.'' In this paper we show that some of the phenomenology of interference can be reproduced in a ``classical'' way, by reproducing the Elitzur-Vaidman Bomb Tester (including their improved version) using an extension of the quantum simulation logic (QSL) formalism. Our result improves and simplifies a previous result by Catani \emph{et al}, which relies on a much more complicated extension involving a ``toy field theory.'' We also show that not all single-particle interference can be explained by such a simple extension (including that of Catani et al), by showing that Hofmann's three-path interferometer is ``nonclassical'' in a very specific sense: it violates a Kochen-Specker-noncontextual inequality. Given that both our extension of QSL and Catani et al's extension are \emph{noncontextual} -- so do not reproduce the contextual behaviour of Hofmann's three-path interferometer -- the behaviour of that interferometer is a proper example of a phenomenon that has in it the heart of quantum mechanics, according to Feynman.

2026-01-19T14:49:50Z 8 pages, 6 figures Jonte R. Hance Jakov Krnic Jan-Åke Larsson http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14316v1 2026-01-19T12:38:54Z

In this paper we approach the problem of superdeterminism from a novel point of view, highlighting its character as a more metaphysical than scientific proposition. First, we introduce a distinction between two types of superdeterministic theories, naïve (NSD) and metaphysical (MSD), and argue how NSD presents significant epistemic flaws. We show how NSD justifies itself through claims to fundamentality, thus connoting itself as a metaphysical theory rather than a scientific one. We finally illustrate that the most developed MSD model so far, Invariant Set Theory, implicitly proposes a confused form of priority monism. Our paper thus reinforces the thesis that theories should demonstrate rather than assume fundamentality and that it is methodologically flawed for a theory to assume its own fundamentality for the sole purpose of defending against criticisms.

2026-01-19T12:38:54Z 15 pages, 2 figures Gabriele Cafiero Luca Molinari Jonte R. Hance http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2266v3 2026-01-19T01:00:01Z

Natural philosophy integrates scientific observation with abstract frameworks, often using a mathematical Ansatz to hypothesise about physical phenomena. Exploring the possibility of other universes, however, challenges assumptions that physical laws, like spacetime geometry, extend beyond our reality. This paper argues that mathematical abstractions, serving as a telescope beyond physical constraints, enable such reasoning. Through a projective algebra formalism (Section 4), we model the mechanism of Ansatz, abstractly describing physical objects. This yields a resolution to Wigner's unreasonable effectiveness via cardinality equivalence (Section 5) and clarifies terms like 'evidence' and 'existence' (Section 6) to align with the conventions used in physics. A Cantor-inspired paradox shows no universe can contain all mathematical abstractions (e.g., sets, numbers), as its power set exceeds it, necessitating an external abstract realm (Section 6.4). This logical necessity, which holds even in the context of alternative set theories like New Foundations, provides evidence for a minimal external universe as an abstract realm, supporting Mathematical Realism. This result is not specific to the formalism, as long as we accept that the principles of set theory are mathematically valid. As abstract entities elude empirical detection, logical evidence is apt, guiding future science and philosophy research and fostering interdisciplinary inquiry.

2013-06-07T01:26:39Z This new 2025-2026 update further generalises the Projective Algebra method developed herein beyond ZFC set theory, extending to New Foundations and other set theoretic systems Jonathan M. M. Hall http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16860v3 2026-01-19T00:31:50Z

We establish three impossibility results regarding our knowledge of the quantum state of the universe. Suppose the universal quantum state is a typical unit vector in a high-dimensional subspace $\mathscr{H}_0$ of Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}$, such as the low-entropy subspace defined by the Past Hypothesis. We show that: (1) Any particular observation is incapable of identifying the universal state vector in $\mathscr{H}_0$ or substantially reducing the set of possibilities. In other words, the overwhelming majority of possible state vectors are observationally indistinguishable from each other. (2) For any reasonably probable measurement outcome and for most pairs of vectors in $\mathscr{H}_0$, that outcome will not appreciably favor one vector over the other. (3) Bayesian updating on any measurement result, unless it is extraordinarily improbable, has a negligible effect on the initial uniform probability distribution over the states in $\mathscr{H}_0$. These findings represent the most stringent epistemic constraints known for a quantum universe and are derived from a typicality theorem in quantum statistical mechanics. We close by considering how theoretical considerations beyond empirical evidence might inform our understanding of this fact and our knowledge of the universal quantum state.

2024-10-22T09:59:57Z Accepted version in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 23 pages LaTeX, no figures; v3 minor revision Eddy Keming Chen Roderich Tumulka 10.1086/740609 http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12159v1 2026-01-17T20:11:50Z

I define a notion of locality LOC, closely modelled on the Bell principle of Local Causality, construed as the condition that single case probabilities cannot be modified by actions at spacelike separation. The new principle, like that of Bell, forces Bell inequalities, but with two loopholes: one is violation of measurement independence, known to Bell, but the other is non-uniqueness of remote outcomes, a loophole only for LOC, not for Local Causality. I also set out a theory of physical probability, applicable to the Everett interpretation, in which the Born rule is derived, and which therefore violates Bell inequalities. I show it is consistent with LOC. Surprisingly, both loopholes are exploited. I conclude not only that physical probability in the Everett interpretation involves no action at a distance, but that the observed violation of Bell inequalities is powerful evidence for many worlds.

2026-01-17T20:11:50Z To appear in Local Quantum Mechanics: Everett, many worlds, and reality, A. Ney (ed.), Oxford University Press. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2512.00575 Simon Saunders http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05681v2 2026-01-16T16:36:12Z

Determinism is (roughly) the thesis that the past determines the future. But efforts to define it precisely have exposed deep methodological disagreements. Standard possible-worlds formulations of determinism presuppose an "agreement" relation between worlds,but this relation can be understood in multiple ways, none of which is particularly clear. We critically examine the proliferation of definitions of determinism in the recent literature, arguing that these definitions fail to deliver clear verdicts about actual scientific theories. We advocate a return to a formal approach, in the logical tradition of Carnap, that treats determinism as a property of scientific theories, rather than an elusive metaphysical doctrine. We highlight two key distinctions: (1) the difference between qualitative and "full" determinism, as emphasized in recent discussions of physics and metaphysics, and (2) the distinction between weak and strong formal conditions on the uniqueness of world extensions. We argue that defining determinism in terms of metaphysical notions such as haecceities is unhelpful, whereas rigorous formal criteria such as Belot's D1 and D3 offer a tractable and scientifically relevant account. By clarifying what it means for a theory to be deterministic, we set the stage for a fruitful interaction between physics and metaphysics.

2025-03-07T18:43:45Z 46 pages Hans Halvorson JB Manchak James Owen Weatherall http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306079v2 2026-01-16T11:15:37Z

The paper presents shortly the geometric approach to the problem of a general quantization formalism, both physically meaningful and mathematically consistent.

2003-06-10T16:15:20Z 8 pages, replaced to improve notation Rom.Rep.Phys. 45 (1993) 645 Marius Grigorescu http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11671v1 2026-01-16T03:14:55Z

This is an editorial article based on the reseaches on the Ising model over the last 100 years.

2026-01-16T03:14:55Z 8 pages Eur. Phys. J. B 99 (2026) 16 Muktish Acharyya Yurij Holovatch Ferenc Igloi 10.1140/epjb/s10051-026-01129-y http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09996v1 2026-01-15T02:16:34Z

One of the most public episodes of gatekeeping in modern science was the case of so-called 'cold fusion'. At a news conference in 1989 the electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced that they had found evidence of nuclear fusion in palladium electrodes loaded with deuterium. There was worldwide interest. Many groups sought to reproduce the results, most unsuccessfully. Within months, the prevailing view became strongly negative. The claims of Fleischmann and Pons came to be regarded as disreputable, as well as false. As the Caltech physicist David Goldstein put it, cold fusion became 'a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment' (Goldstein 1994). The case would already be interesting for students of gatekeeping if the story had ended at that point. Even more interestingly, however, the field survived and persisted. It has been enjoying a modest renaissance, with recent government funding both in the US and the EU. This piece offers an opinionated introduction to cold fusion as a case study of scientific gatekeeping, discussing both its early and recent history

2026-01-15T02:16:34Z 43 pages, no figures Jonah F Messinger Florian Metzler Huw Price http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09899v1 2026-01-14T22:13:58Z

Mathematical and astronomical achievements of the Islamic World during its golden era are briefly exposed. Thie article is based on the invited talk delivered remotely at the ICRANet-Isfahan Astronomical meeting, November 2-5, 2021, which, in turn, reproduces major parts of one of the chapters of my book ``Our Celestial Clockwork'', published recently (2021) by the World Scientific.

2026-01-14T22:13:58Z The illustrated text appeared in the Proceedings of the ICRANet-Isfahan Astronomical Meeting held in Isfahan, Iran, form Nov. 2 till 5, 2021, published by Cambridge Scientific Publishers in 2021, pp. 41-62 ISBN 978-I-908106-88-9 (2024) Richard Kerner http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09759v1 2026-01-14T02:59:26Z

The observation of magnetism in atomically thin van der Waals (vdW) antiferromagnets (FePS$_3$, NiPS$_3$, and MnPS$_3$) in 2016 marked an important moment in the development of two-dimensional (2D) physics. In this personal reflection, I describe how a simple question, posed in the early 2010s, motivated experimental efforts that culminated in the demonstration of antiferromagnetic order in monolayer FePS$_3$. Alongside subsequent reports of vdW ferromagnets in 2017, these developments helped establish intrinsic magnetism as a viable degree of freedom in atomically thin materials. I close with personal lessons drawn from this period and a perspective on the opportunities that now shape the field's second decade and beyond.

2026-01-14T02:59:26Z J. Phys. Condens. Matter (in press) Je-Geun Park 10.1088/1361-648X/ae35b8 http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19672v2 2026-01-13T19:24:02Z

Free will discourse is primarily centred around the thesis of determinism. Much of the literature takes determinism as its starting premise, assuming it true for the sake of discussion, and then proceeds to present arguments for why, if determinism is true, free will would be either possible or impossible. This is reflected in the theoretical terrain of the debate, with the primary distinction currently being between compatibilists and incompatibilists and not, as one might expect, between free will realists and skeptics. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we argue that there is no reason to accept such a framing. We show that, on the basis of modern physics, there is no good evidence that physical determinism of any variety provides an accurate description of our universe and lots of evidence against such a view. Moreover, we show that this analysis extends equally to the sort of indeterministic worldviews endorsed by many libertarian philosophers and their skeptics, a worldview which we refer to as determinism plus randomness. The papers secondary aim is therefore to present an alternative conception of indeterminism, which is more in line with the empirical evidence from physics. It is this indeterministic worldview, we suggest, that ought to be the central focus of a reframed philosophy of free will.

2025-03-25T13:59:18Z Henry D. Potter George F. R. Ellis Kevin J. Mitchell