tim button

Abstract: Can we quantify over everything: absolutely, positively, definitely, totally, every thing? Some authors have claimed that we must be able to do so, since the doctrine that we cannot is self-stultifying. But this treats restrictivism as a positive doctrine. Restrictivism is much better viewed as a kind of militant quietism. I call this version of restrictivism "dadaism". Dadaists advance a hostile challenge, which seeks to silence those who hold positive positions.

Abstract: Irrealists about fictions sometimes seek to distance themselves from the literal truth of fictions by prefixing sentences with fictional operators. For example, irrealists might say "according to The Lord of the Rings {Bilbo is a hobbit}", rather than simply saying "Bilbo is a hobbit". But when irrealists want to say something like "I am taller than Bilbo", there is nowhere good to insert the operator "according to The Lord of the Rings". This is an instance of the operator problem. In this paper, I criticise Sainsbury's (2006) spotty scope approach to the operator problem. He treats the problem as syntactic; but the problem is ultimately metaphysical. I highlight this by showing that Sainsbury cannot supply an adequate semantics for his spotty scope logic.

Abstract: Recent work on hypercomputation has raised new objections against the Church-Turing Thesis. In this paper, I focus on the challenge posed by a particular kind of hypercomputer, namely, SAD computers. I first consider deterministic and probabilistic barriers to the physical possibility of SAD computation. These barriers suggest several ways to defend a Physical version of the Church-Turing Thesis. I then argue against Hogarth's analogy between non-Turing computability and non-Euclidean geometry, showing that it is a non-sequitur. I conclude that the Effective version of the Church-Turing Thesis is unaffected by SAD computation.

Abstract: This paper develops my (BJPS 2009) criticisms of the philosophical significance of a certain sort of infinitary computational process, a hyperloop. I start by considering whether hyperloops suggest that "effectively computable" is vague (in some sense). I then consider and criticise two arguments by Hogarth, who maintains that hyperloops undermine the very idea of effective computability. I conclude that hyperloops, on their own, cannot threaten the notion of an effective procedure.

Abstract: Tallant (2007) has challenged my recent defence of no-futurism (Button 2006), but he does not discuss the key to that defence: that no-futurism's primitive relation 'x is real-as-of y' is not symmetric. I therefore answer Tallant's challenge in the same way as I originally defended no-futurism. I also clarify no-futurism by rejecting a common mis-characterisation of the growing-block theorist. By supplying a semantics for no-futurists, I demonstrate that no-futurism faces no sceptical challenges. I conclude by considering the problem of how to interpret the relation 'x is real-as-of y'.
NB: A correction to this article appears in Analysis 68.1, and is available here. The web archive pdf incorporates the change made in this correction.

Abstract: Keränen (2001) raises an argument against realistic (ante rem) structuralism: where a mathematical structure has a non-trivial automorphism, distinct indiscernible positions within the structure cannot be shown to be non-identical using only the properties and relations of that structure. Ladyman (2005) responds by allowing our identity criterion to include 'irreflexive two-place relations'. I note that this does not solve the problem for structures with indistinguishable positions, i.e. positions that have all the same properties as each other and exactly the same relations to all objects (including themselves). I conclude that realistic structuralists must compromise and treat some structures eliminativistically.

No-futurists ('growing block theorists') hold that that the past and the present are real, but that the future is not. The present moment is therefore privileged: it is the last moment of time. Craig Bourne (2002) and David Braddon-Mitchell (2004) have argued that this position is unmotivated, since the privilege of presentness comes apart from the indexicality of 'this moment'. I respond that no-futurists should treat 'x is real-as-of y' as a nonsymmetric relation. Then different moments are real-as-of different times. This reunites privilege with indexicality, but entails that no-futurists must believe in ineliminably tensed facts.