A gas relaxing into equilibrium is often taken to be a process in which a system moves from an “improbable” to a “probable” state. Given that the thermodynamic entropy increases during such a process, it is natural to conjecture that the thermodynamic entropy is a measure of the probability of a macrostate. For nonideal classical gases, however, I claim that there is no clear sense in which the thermodynamic entropy of a macrostate measures its probability. We must therefore reject the idea that (in classical mechanics) thermodynamic entropy and probability are connected in a deep and general way.

Using the ‘Aharonov approach’, Linden and colleagues purportedly prove that reaching equilibrium is a universal property of quantum systems. Such a proof would constitute a very significant result in the foundations of statistical mechanics. I argue that, as it stands, this proof is not sound. However, based on the their theorems, I construct an argument for the conclusion that an arbitrary small subsystem of a large quantum system typically tends toward and remains in, or close to, equilibrium. This is the central result of the article. In the final part of the article, I defend the Aharonov approach against anti-interventionist criticisms.

The aim of this article is to analyze the role of the distinction between principle and constructive theories in the question of the explanatory power of special relativity. We show how the distinction breaks down at the explanatory level. We assess Harvey Brown's claim that, as a principle theory, special relativity lacks explanatory power. We argue that this claim is based on an unrealistic picture of the kind of explanations provided by principle (and constructive) theories. Finally, we argue that the structural account of explanation captures the explanatory success of special relativity.

In recent work on the foundations of statistical mechanics and the arrow of time, Barry Loewer and David Albert have developed a view that defends both a best system account of laws and a physicalist fundamentalism. I argue that there is a tension between their account of laws, which emphasizes the pragmatic element in assessing the relative strength of different deductive systems, and their reductivism or fundamentalism. If we take the pragmatic dimension in their account seriously, then the laws of the special sciences should be part of our best explanatory system of the world, as well.

The aim of this article is to discuss some aspects of the nature of gravitational energy within the general theory of relativity. Some aspects of the difficulties to ascribe the usual features of localization and conservation to gravitational energy are reviewed and considered in the light of the dual role of the dynamical gravitational field, which encodes both inertio-gravitational effects and the chronogeometrical structures of space-time. These considerations will lead us to discuss the fact that the very notion of energy—gravitational or not—is actually well defined in the theory only with respect to some background structure.

Given the impressive success of environment-induced decoherence (EID), nowadays no interpretation of quantum mechanics can ignore its results. The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation (MHI) has proved to be effective for solving several interpretative problems, but since its actualization rule applies to closed systems, it seems to stand at odds with EID. The purpose of this article is to show that this is not the case: the states einselected by the interaction with the environment according to EID (the elements of the “pointer basis”) are the eigenvectors of an actual-valued observable belonging to the preferred context selected by the MHI.

Here, we hypothesize that a smooth nongeodesic closed timelike curve is never most efficient with respect to total acceleration if a kink is permitted at the initial (terminal) point. We support our hypothesis in a variety of ways. Most notably, we show Malament's opposing conjecture concerning Gödel space-time to be false.

In his award-winning contribution to the biannual PSA conference at Pittsburgh in 2008, Christian Wüthrich mounted an argument against structuralism about space-time in the context of the general theory of relativity (GTR), to the effect that structuralists cannot discern space-time points: an “abysmal embarrassment” for the structuralist, Wüthrich judged. Wüthrich's characterization of space-time structuralism is however incorrect. We demonstrate how, on the basis of a correct characterization of space-time structuralism, it is possible to discern space-time points in the GTR structures under consideration. Thus Wüthrich's argument crumbles.

This article investigates Jaynes's “unbelievably short proof” of the second law of thermodynamics. It assesses published criticisms of the proof and concludes that these criticisms miss the mark by demanding results that either import expectations of a proof not consistent with an information-theoretic approach or would require assumptions not employed in the proof itself, as it looks only to establish a weaker conclusion. Finally, a weakness in the proof is identified and illustrated. This weakness stems from the fact the Jaynes's assumption of unitary evolution is too strong given his perspective, rather than too weak to provide the desired results.

This article concerns the concept of background-structure in a classical field theory. I propose and evaluate three ways of fixing the extension of the concept, giving particular attention to the bearing of the Anderson-Friedman definition of an absolute object on that task. I attempt to show that, though that task cannot end with the Anderson-Friedman definition, that definition sharpens—–and does not blur—–the particular feature of general relativity that is the basis of nearly all attempts to fix the extension of the concept.

Contrary to the claim that measurement standards are absolutely accurate by definition, I argue that unit definitions do not completely fix the referents of unit terms. Instead, idealized models play a crucial semantic role in coordinating the theoretical definition of a unit with its multiple concrete realizations. The accuracy of realizations is evaluated by comparing them to each other in light of their respective models. The epistemic credentials of this method are examined and illustrated through an analysis of the contemporary standardization of time. I distinguish among five senses of “measurement accuracy” and clarify how idealizations enable the assessment of accuracy in each sense.

Janssen argues that special relativity is preferable to Lorentzian dynamics due to its kinematic structure. Brown, along with others, raises an objection, arguing that a dynamical understanding of special relativity is explanatorily prior and hence more fundamental than the principle theory-based kinematic structure of Minkowski space-time. This article challenges this objection, arguing that both Janssen and Brown miss the essential aspect of the principles of special relativity that underwrite its interpretational success. It is not its kinematic structure but the constitutive nature of the principles it employs, by providing a coherent conceptual framework, that does the foundational work.

What is the role of bridge laws in intertheoretic relations? An assumption shared by many views about these relations is that bridge laws enable reductions. In this article, I acknowledge the naturalness of this assumption, but I question it by presenting a context within thermal physics (involving phase transitions) in which the bridge laws, puzzlingly, seem to contribute to blocking the reduction.

Using the optical ether as a case study, this article advances four lines of consideration to show why synchronic versions of the divide et impera strategy of scientific realism are unlikely to work. The considerations draw from (a) the nineteenth-century theories of light, (b) the rise of surprising implication as an epistemic value from the time of Fresnel on, (c) assessments of the ether in end-of-century reports around 1900, and (d) the roots of ether theorizing in now superseded metaphysical assumptions. The typicality of the case and its impact on diachronic versions of the strategy are briefly discussed.

The Pessimistic Induction (PI) states: most past scientific theories were radically mistaken; therefore, current theories are probably similarly mistaken. But mistaken in what way? On the usual understanding, such past theories are false. However, on widely held views about reference and presupposition, many theoretical claims of previous scientific theories are neither true nor false. And if substantial portions of past theories are truth-valueless, then the PI leads to semantic antirealism. But most current philosophers of science reject semantic antirealism. So PI proponents face a difficult choice: accept either semantic antirealism or an unorthodox position on reference and presupposition.

Nonreductive physicalists have long used multiple realizability to argue for the explanatory “autonomy” of the special sciences. Recently, in the face of the local reduction and disjunctive property responses to multiple realizability, some defenders of nonreductive physicalism have suggested that autonomy can be grounded merely in human cognitive limitations. In this article, I argue that this is mistaken. By distinguishing between two kinds of abstraction I show that the greater explanatory relevance of some special-science predicates (to certain explananda) is both nonanthropocentric and not solely based on considerations of multiple realizability.

Microphysical realism is the position that the only real entities and properties are found at the most fundamental level of nature. In this article, I challenge microphysical realism concerning properties and natural kinds. One argument for microphysical realism about entities, the “nothing-but argument,” does not apply to properties and kinds. Another argument, the “causal exclusion argument,” cannot be sustained in light of modern physics. Moreover, this argument leads to an objection against microphysical realism, based on the “illusoriness of macroproperties.” Another objection is based on the possibility that there is no fundamental level but a “bottomless pit.”

Structural realism first emerged as an epistemological thesis aimed to avoid the so-called pessimistic metainduction on the history of science. Some authors, however, have suggested that the preservation of structure across theory change is best explained by endorsing the metaphysical thesis that structure is all there is. Although the possibility of this latter, ‘ontic’ form of structural realism has been extensively debated, not much has been said concerning its justification. In this article, I distinguish between two arguments in favor of ontic structural realism that can be reconstructed from the literature and find both of them wanting.

In this essay, I argue that uneliminated idealizations pose a serious problem for scientific realism. I consider one method for “de-idealizing” models—robustness analysis. However, I argue that unless idealizations are eliminated from an idealized theory and robustness analysis need not do that, scientists are not justified in believing that the theory is true. I consider one example of modeling from the biological sciences that exemplifies the problem.

Many philosophers accept a nonreductive physicalist view of at least some special sciences, which is to say that while they assert that each particular referent of any special science term is identical to some referent of a physical term, or token physicalism, they deny that special science types are identical to physical types. The most commonly cited reason for this position is Jerry Fodor's antireductionist argument based on the multiple realizability of many special science terms. I argue that if token physicalism is true, as nonreductive physicalists believe, then this multiple-realization argument fails to preclude reductive physicalism.