Modality (possibility, necessity and related phenomena) is central to philosophy both as a topic of inquiry and as a methodological tool. There are many controversies about the nature of possibility and necessity and about what counts as possible or necessary. But it is generally agreed that possibility and necessity are intimitely related, they are interdefinable: being possible is the same as being not necessarily not. Goswick, however, denies this! Listen to find out why.

Click here for the paper.

Support the show

Recently, there has been frenzied interest in artificial intelligence and, in particular, in the issue of AI safety; there have been “open letters” signed by some of the biggest names in the tech business urging us to take seriously the existential threat posed by AI, and the UK government has just announced that it will convene the first global AI safety summit this autumn.

But what is the threat here, exactly? There are risks associated with any new technology: fire burns, nuclear energy can be harnessed in bombs and social media algorithms threaten democracy. The so-called AI singularity is supposed to be at least on par with the absolute worst of these threats since, according to some, it has the real potential to wipe out all of humanity.

Will there be a singularity? How should we negotiate a singularity and will it necessarily be a bad thing resulting in human extinction? Assuming the singularity doesn’t wipe out humanity, how can we integrate into a post-singularity world? Listen to find out!

Here is a link to the paper.

Support the show

The measurement problem highlights a deeply puzzling feature of quantum mechanics: nature seems to obey one law when not measured and a completely different law when measured. But how does nature "recognise" measurement contexts?! What explains these shifts in how nature operates?

For the Humean about laws, i.e., one who maintains that nature unthinkingly acts and the laws describe, these issues lose their bite. So perhaps there just is no measurement problem for Humeans! But if true, does this count for or against Humeanism? Listen and decide!

Here's a link to the paper

See also this paper by Hicks and Schaffer for detail on derivative properties featuring in fundamental laws, an idea that features centrally in Dorst's discussion.

Support the show