Our targets will be pursued via groups that cut across the official research units. The groups are identified on the basis of the goals. The goal labels will also be used to name the groups, to which all research units contribute members.

The PI and the other coordinators, Alai (Urbino), Castellani (Florence) and Dorato (Rome 3), will be the prime members of group G3, working in cooperation on the most general task: how the manifest and scientific images may be compatible.

Both G3a and G3b require attention to the history of science, mathematics ad logic. Support for this will be sought by recruiting a 2 years post-doc in Urbino.

The PI will focus on G3b, in cooperation with Bruni (Florence) and a 1 year post-doc recruited for this task in Macerata.

The other prime members will concentrate on G3b, with support from Buzzoni (Macerata) and Morganti (Rome 3).

The members of the other groups will be made explicit below while providing details on G1 and G2.

GOAL G1 (manifest image).

The members will be Orilia, Philip (Macerata), a two year postdoc recruited in Macerata (with the task of providing data and analyses via experimental philosophy), and Alai (whose knowledge of experimental philosophy will provide support to the postdoc).

G1a (properties and relations). Orilia will argue that abundant PRs are necessary to make sense of the manifest image, whereas sparse PRs are required by the scientific image, and will also insist that even within the manifest image we need distinguish between more fundamental sparse PRs and less fundamental abundant (analyzable) PRs.

This line will be explored with specific emphasis on relations, by relying on the account of differential application defended in Orilia (2014a). According to this, differential application is explained by postulating o-roles, i.e. ontological counterparts of the thematic roles postulated by linguists, such as agent, patient, theme, location, source, destination, etc. With o-roles in play, there seems to be no need for converse relations. Yet, natural language strongly suggests that they should be admitted.

Orilia then wishes to explore the option of making room for converse relations among the abundant PRs of the manifest image, after providing appropriate analyses that involve o-roles. This approach opens up the issue of which o-roles should really be postulated.

A natural starting point is to see which thematic roles have been invoked by linguists (https://semantic-annotation.uvt.nl/LIRICS_semroles.htm), but it is hard to make sense of the literature here; many different lists have been offered with contrasting definitions of the thematic roles, and it is hard to find coherence and exhaustiveness.

To improve matters, Philip will produce a detailed survey of the proposals, guided by our ontological concerns.

The postdoc will then test the intuitions of ordinary speakers with appropriate questionnaires, in order to arrive at a reliable list of the o-roles required by the manifest image.

It should then be investigated whether additional o-roles are required for the relations postulated from the standpoint of the scientific image. We expect that the pursuit of goal G2a can shed light on this.

G1b (time). The postdoc will investigate via experimental philosophy on how the passage of time is conceptualized at the level of commonsense and on whether commonsense really favors a presentist conception of time. A starting point is Graziani 2017, whose results must be substantiated with further tests, more participants, additional questions, and attention to cultural differences.

Orilia will also work on the characterization of tenseless predication, by addressing questions such as these: is the “is” of “sometimes John is sad” tenseless or present-tensed? If, following Prior, “John was tired” is to be rendered as “in the past, John is tired”; is the “is” of this rendition tenseless, or, as Prior proposed, present-tensed?

G1c (logic). The postdoc will explore via experimental philosophy the nature of the implicit informal logic; the intuitions of ordinary reasoners regarding the validity of specific argumentation patterns in various contexts will be tested with appropriate questionnaires.

The working hypothesis is that reasoners tend to accept both classical logic and naive principles of truth and predication, which taken together lead to paradoxes. Reasoners’ reactions when such paradoxes emerge will also be tested.

GOAL G2 (scientific image). Here we distinguish a group for G2a and G2b, with members from all units, and one for G2c, with Florence’s logicians Cantini, Minari and Bruni.

G2a (scientific realism). Alai will carefully assess the latest challenges to selective realism coming from the history of science (Alai 2017). The working hypothesis is that a correct specification of the realist criteria of ontological commitment can help to reconcile the two images. Conversely, the desirability of such reconciliation will place useful constraints on the current debate on criteria for selective realism.

Castellani will address the issue of how abstract structures, used in modelling phenomena, actually represent. In particular, she will focus on model templates and their transfer across scientific areas, from a perspective integrating the focus on structural representation with the pragmatist request to include the user’s role in structuring the target. A two-years postdoc specifically working on scientific representation will be hired in Florence.

Castellani and Morganti (Rome 3) will also explore the convergence of independent sources toward the same theoretical posits. They will assess its role in theory-choice and its significance for scientific realism.

Felline (Rome 3) will argue that a description of the kinds of entities and processes underpinning physical (especially quantum) phenomena is essential for explanations to be genuine, thus rejecting ‘black-box’ approaches (Bub 2016).

Buzzoni will work on scientific experiments (also mental ones), with special attention to the relationship between the everyday and the scientific use of tools and the distinction between procedural and representational knowledge. He will make reference to the theory of embodied cognition and to recent results in cognitive science and neuroscience (Thagard 2014).

Tarozzi will further explore (Tarozzi et al. 2012) the idea of reformulating fundamental notions and principles in the history of thought (such as causality or holism) in terms of empirically meaningful philosophical principles and hypotheses, which can be usefully compared to the descriptions of quantum systems.

G2b (time). Fano (Urbino) will look at the contraposition between presentism and eternalism. Endorsing a model-theoretic realism and a regional representation of time (Fano & Macchia forthcoming), he will argue that in certain contexts presentism is favored while in others eternalism is better supported.

In connection to this, Morganti will study the prospects for metaphysical views such as presentism and relationism about spacetime which are apparently at odds with our best science, but might achieve a better status through a careful look at the most sophisticated physical theories (e.g., quantum gravity).

Dorato will build up on previous work (Dorato & Esfeld 2010) to explore whether quantum mechanics can explain the arrow of time that we take for granted at the level of the manifest image, and more generally provide an account of the fundamental asymmetries of our experience – the arrows of causality, knowledge, information, and action.

With this aim he will study the ontology of dynamical reduction models of the quantum domain, in particular their essential temporal asymmetry, and the related asymmetry of thermodynamics.

In this connection, a two-year postdoc specifically working on quantum mechanics and/or the philosophy of time will be hired at Rome 3.

This investigation is also relevant for an assessment of the view of spacetime as non-fundamental, which also requires addressing fundamentality and ontological dependence. Morganti will tackle these issues from a naturalistic perspective (Morganti 2013).

References

Alai M. 2017, “The Debates on Scientific Realism Today: Knowledge and Objectivity in Science,” in E. Agazzi (ed.), Varieties of Scientific Realism, Springer.

Dorato M & Esfeld M., “GRW as an ontology of dispositions,” in Studies in Hist. and Phil. of Modern Physics 41: 41-49.

Fano V. & Macchia G. forthcoming, “A Physical Interpretation of Lewis’ Discrepancy between Personal and External Time in Time Travel,” Synthese.

Graziani E. 2017, Ontologia temporale e senso comune, Ph.D. Thesis, Macerata.

Morganti M. 2013, Combining Science and Metaphysics, Palgrave MacMillan.

Orilia F. 2014a, “Positions, Ordering Relations and O-Roles,”Dialectica 68: 283-303.

Tarozzi G., Calosi C. & Fano V. 2012, Holism as an Empirically Meaningful Metaphysical Hypothesis, Epistemologia 35: 45-57.

Thagard, P. 2014, “Thought Experiments Considered Harmful,” Perspectives on Science 22: 288-305.