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
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