Unsharp Humean Chances in Statistical Physics: A Reply to Beisbart

  • Radin Dardashti
  • Luke Glynn
  • Karim Thébault
  • Mathias Frisch
Chapter

Abstract

In an illuminating paper, Beisbart (Beisbart C, Good just isn’t good enough – Humean chances and Boltzmannian statistical physics. In: Galavotti MC, Dieks D (eds) New directions in the philosophy of science. Springer, Dordrecht, 2014) argues that the recently-popular thesis that the probabilities of statistical mechanics (SM) can function as Best System chances runs into a serious obstacle: there is no one axiomatization of SM that is robustly best, as judged by the theoretical virtues of simplicity, strength, and fit. Beisbart takes this “no clear winner” result to imply that the probabilities yielded by the competing axiomatizations simply fail to count as Best System chances. In this reply, we express sympathy for the “no clear winner” thesis, however we argue that an importantly different moral should be drawn from this. We contend that the implication for Humean chances of there being no uniquely best axiomatization of SM is not that there are no SM chances, but rather that SM chances fail to be sharp.

References

  1. Albert, D. 2000. Time and chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, D. 2012. Physics and chance. In Probability in physics, ed. Y. Ben-Menahem and M. Hemmo, 17–40. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beisbart, C. 2014. Good just isn’t good enough – Humean chances and Boltzmannian statistical physics. In New directions in the philosophy of science, ed. M.C. Galavotti and D. Dieks. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Callender, C. 2011. The past histories of molecules. In Probabilities in physics, ed. C. Beisbart and S. Hartmann, 83–113. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Earman, J. 2006. The ‘past hypothesis’: Not even false. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37: 399–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elga, A. 2004. Infinitesimal chances and the laws of nature. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elga, A. 2010. Subjective probabilities should be sharp. Philosopher’ Imprint 10: 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Fenton-Glynn, L. unpublished. Unsharp best system chances. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10239/
  9. Frigg, R., and C. Hoefer. 2013. The best humean system for statistical mechanics. Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-013-9541-5.Google Scholar
  10. Frigg, R., and C. Hoefer. 2010. Determinism and chance from a humean perspective. In The present situation in the philosophy of science, ed. D. Dieks, W.J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, M. Weber, F. Stadler, and T. Uebel, 351–371. Berlin/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frisch, M. 2011. From Boltzmann to Arbuthnot: Higher-level laws and the best system. Philosophy of Science 78: 1001–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frisch, M. forthcoming. Physical fundamentalism in a Lewisian best system. In Asymmetries of chance and time, ed. Alastair Wilson. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Glynn, L. 2010. Deterministic chance. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61: 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoefer, C. 2007. The third way on objective chance: A sceptic’s guide to objective chance. Mind 116: 549–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joyce, J. 2010. A defense of imprecise credences in inference and decision making. Philosophical Perspectives 24: 281–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. 1983. New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. 1986. Postscripts to ‘a subjectivist’s guide to objective chance’. In his Philosophical papers, vol. 2, 114–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. 1994. Humean supervenience debugged. Mind 103: 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loewer, B. 2001. Determinism and chance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32: 609–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loewer, B. 2004. David Lewis’s humean theory of objective chance. Philosophy of Science 71: 1115–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loewer, B. 2007. Counterfactuals and the second law. In Causation, physics, and the constitution of reality: Russell’s republic revisited, ed. H. Price and R. Corry, 293–326. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  22. Loewer, B. 2008. Why there is anything except physics. In Being reduced: New essays on reduction, explanation and causation, ed. J. Hohwy and J. Kallestrup, 149–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loewer, B. 2012a. Two accounts of laws and time. Philosophical Studies 160: 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loewer, B. 2012b. The emergence of time’s arrows and special science laws from physics. Interface Focus 2: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maudlin, T. 2007. What could be objective about probabilities? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38: 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schaffer, J. 2007. Deterministic chance? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58: 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Winsberg, E. 2004. Can conditioning on the ‘past hypothesis’ militate against the reversibility objections? Philosophy of Science 71: 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radin Dardashti
    • 1
  • Luke Glynn
    • 2
  • Karim Thébault
    • 1
  • Mathias Frisch
    • 3
  1. 1.Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP)Ludwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations