Published and In PressIf you would like a copy of one of these papers for research or educational purposes, please let me know as I have a large number of eprints for some articles that I am allowed to distribute free of charge and very few friends who consider an eprint of one of my articles to be an acceptable birthday present. (1) Baron, S. & Miller, K. (in press) "Causation in a Timeless World" in Synthese. Penultimate draft available here. Online first here.
(2) Baron, S. & Miller, K. (in press) "Causation sans Time" in American Philosophical Quarterly. Penultimate version available here.Is time necessary for causation? We argue that, given a counterfactual theory of causation, it is not. We defend this claim by considering cases of counterfactual dependence in quantum mechanics. These cases involve laws of nature that govern entanglement. These laws make possible the evaluation of causal counterfactuals between space-like separated entangled particles. There is, for the proponent of a counterfactual theory of causation, a possible world in which causation but not time exists that can be reached by ‘stripping out’ time from the actual world, leaving (some) quantum mechanical laws intact. (3) Baron, S. (in press) "The Priority of the Now" in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. Penultimate version available here.
(4) Asay, J. & Baron, S. (in press) "The Hard Road to Presentism" in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. Penultimate version available here.
(5) Baron, S. (in press) "Optimisation and Mathematical Explanation: Doing the Levy Walk" in Synthese. Available here.The indispensability argument seeks to establish the existence of mathematical objects. The success of the indispensability argument turns on finding cases of genuine extra-mathematical explanation (the explanation of physical facts by mathematical facts). In this paper, I identify a new case of extra-mathematical explanation, involving the search patterns of fully-aquatic marine predators. I go on to use this case to predict the prevalence of extra-mathematical explanation in science. (6) Baron, S. (in press) "Can Indispensability-Driven Platonists be (Serious) Presentists?" in Theoria. Penultimate version available here.
(7) Baron, S. (in press) "Tensed Supervenience: a No-Go for Presentism" in Southern Journal of Philosophy. Penultimate version available here.
(8) Baron, S., Miller K. & Norton, J. (in press) "Groundless Truth" in Inquiry (special issue on grounding). Penultimate version available soon.
(9) Baron, S. & Miller, K. (in press) “Characterising Eternalism” in New Papers on the Present, Torrengo, G., Miller, K. & Ciuini, R. (eds.), Philosophia Verlag.
(10) Baron, S. (2013) “A Truthmaker Indispensability Argument” in Synthese 190(12), 2413–2427. Available here. I argue that one cannot avoid the indispensability argument by simply ejecting Quine's criterion of ontological commitment, because there is another criterion that will do the job: an Armstrongian truthmaker criterion of ontological commitment. Recent discussion of the problem of negative existentials for truthmaker theory suggests a modest solution to the problem: I consider the aboutness objection against standard truth-preserving presentism (STP). According to STP: (i) past-directed propositions (propositions that seem to be about the past) like <Caesar crossed the Rubicon>, are sometimes true (ii) truth supervenes on being and (iii) the truth of past-directed propositions does not supervene on how things were, in the past. According to the aboutness objection (iii) is implausible, given (i) and (ii): for any proposition, P, P ought to be true in virtue of what P is about, and so it is upon the past that the truth of past-directed propositions ought to supervene. Although an objection along these lines has been offered previously, I press the objection in two ways. First, by providing needed support for the view that propositions ought to be true in virtue of what they are about and, second, by arguing that the two responses available to the proponent of STP fail to be compelling. In "Presentism, Truth and Supervenience" I attempt to show that a certain class of responses to the truthmaker objection to presentism (namely those that use something other than past things as the truthmakers for claims about the past) fail by their own lights (14) Baron, S., Coltheart, R., Majeed, R. & Miller K. (2013) "What is a Negative Property?" in Philosophy 88(1), pp. 55–79. Available here.The debate about negative properties is underway. However, comparatively little attention has been paid to the difference between negative and positive properties. We attempt to make sense of the distinction between negative and positive properties in terms of causation by omission and argue that negative properties are metaphysically contentious posits. Philosophical Papers 41(1), pp. 1–21 Available here.
(16) Baron, S., Evans, P. & Miller, K. (2010) “From Timeless Physical Theory to Timelessness” in Humana Mente 13, pp. 32–60. Available here.
| In ProgressI currently have a couple of papers that are pretty close to done. Abstracts are below. Drafts also. (1) Time Enough for Explanation w/ Mark Colyvan (2) A Model of Extra-Mathematical Explanation There has been a recent surge of interest in the notion of extra-mathematical explanation (the explanation of physical phenomena, in part, by mathematical entities). A number of putative cases of extra-mathematical explanation have been identified, and used to provide support for an explanatory version of the indispensability argument for mathematical Platonism. But how exactly does extra-mathematical explanation work? In this paper I offer a model for understanding explanation of this kind. The model is a version of the deductive-nomological account of explanation, one that combines a restricted form of entailment common to relevant logics with an informational interpretation of explanatory relevance. Draft available here. (3) The Explanatory Dispensability of Idealizations Enhanced indispensability arguments seek to establish realism about mathematics based on the explanatory role that mathematics plays in science. Idealizations pose a problem for such arguments. Idealizations, like mathematics, boost the explanatory credentials of our best scientific theories. And yet, idealizations are not the sorts of things that are supposed to attract a realist attitude. I argue that the explanatory symmetry between idealizations and mathematics can be broken as follows: though idealizations contribute to the explanatory power of our best theories, they do not carry the explanatory load. It is at least open however that mathematics is load-carrying. To give this idea substance, I offer an analysis of what it is to carry the explanatory load in terms of difference-making and counterfactuals. Draft available here. (4) The Creeping, Fictional Past w/ Jamin Asay Presentism seeks to accommodate two intuitions about time: (i) that only present entities exist, and (ii) that past entities existed, possessed properties and stood in relations. We argue that presentists cannot plausibly capture both intuitions. Specifically, we argue that given (i) there is no obvious way to understand what it is to have existed that differentiates that notion from existing in the fiction, and so no way to uphold (ii) in a theoretically satisfying way. Draft available here. |