14.01.2014 Views

2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society

2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society

2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

David MacCallum Carleton College<br />

<strong>PSA</strong> Abstracts<br />

Quantum Entanglement and Classical Computations<br />

There are computational tasks that can shown to be ‘easy’ for a quantum computer,<br />

even though they appear to be ‘hard’ for all classical computers. This increased<br />

computational power is based on a form <strong>of</strong> parallelism in quantum computation<br />

that requires entangled states. This use <strong>of</strong> entangled states appears to conflict<br />

with the classical models <strong>of</strong> computation developed by mathematicians and<br />

logicians. I will argue that, in an important sense, the physical processes we call<br />

quantum computations are not classical computations. However, I do think that<br />

we are justified in calling them computations. Thus, quantum computation gives<br />

us a good reason to generalize our mathematical models <strong>of</strong> computation.<br />

Eric Martin University <strong>of</strong> New South Wales<br />

Daniel Osherson Rice University<br />

Scientific Discovery from the Perspective <strong>of</strong> Hypothesis Acceptance<br />

A model <strong>of</strong> inductive inquiry is defined within the context <strong>of</strong> first-order logic.<br />

The model conceives <strong>of</strong> inquiry as a game between Nature and a scientist. To<br />

begin the game, a nonlogical vocabulary is agreed upon by the two players,<br />

along with a partition <strong>of</strong> a class <strong>of</strong> countable structures for that vocabulary.<br />

Next, Nature secretly chooses one structure (the real world) from some cell <strong>of</strong><br />

the partition. She then presents the scientist with a sequence <strong>of</strong> facts about the<br />

chosen structure. With each new datum the scientist announces a guess about<br />

the cell to which the chosen structure belongs. To succeed in his inquiry, the<br />

scientist’s successive conjectures must be correct all but finitely <strong>of</strong>ten, that is,<br />

the conjectures must converge in the limit to the correct cell. Different kinds <strong>of</strong><br />

scientists can be investigated within this framework. At opposite ends <strong>of</strong> the<br />

spectrum are dumb scientists that rely on the strategy <strong>of</strong> induction by enumeration,<br />

and smart scientists that rely on an operator <strong>of</strong> belief revision. We report some<br />

results about the scope and limits <strong>of</strong> these two inductive strategies.<br />

P<br />

S<br />

A<br />

James Mattingly Indiana University<br />

Singularities and Scalar Fields. Matter Theory and General Relativity<br />

Philosophers <strong>of</strong> physics should be more attentive to the role energy conditions<br />

play in GR. I review the changing status <strong>of</strong> energy conditions for quantum<br />

fields presently there are no singularity theorems for semiclassical GR.So we<br />

must reevaluate how we understand the relationship between GR, QFT and<br />

singularities. Moreover, on our present understanding <strong>of</strong> what it is to be a<br />

229

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!