Modality (possibility, necessity and related phenomena) is central to philosophy both as a topic of inquiry and as a methodological tool. There are many controversies about the nature of possibility and necessity and about what counts as possible or necessary. But it is generally agreed that possibility and necessity are intimitely related, they are interdefinable: being possible is the same as being not necessarily not. Goswick, however, denies this! Listen to find out why.

Click here for the paper. 

Support the Show.

Recently, there has been frenzied interest in artificial intelligence and, in particular, in the issue of AI safety; there have been “open letters” signed by some of the biggest names in the tech business urging us to take seriously the existential threat posed by AI, and the UK government has just announced that it will convene the first global AI safety summit this autumn. 

But what is the threat here, exactly? There are risks associated with any new technology: fire burns, nuclear energy can be harnessed in bombs and social media algorithms threaten democracy. The so-called AI singularity is supposed to be at least on par with the absolute worst of these threats since, according to some, it has the real potential to wipe out all of humanity.

Will there be a singularity? How should we negotiate a singularity and will it necessarily be a bad thing resulting in human extinction? Assuming the singularity doesn’t wipe out humanity, how can we integrate into a post-singularity world? Listen to find out!

Here is a link to the paper.

Support the Show.

Support the show on Patreon to gain instant access to searchable, comment-on-able PDF scripts of all solo episodes! Your support will help to defray hosting and equipment costs and is very much appreciated.

The focus of this episode is “Modal dispositionalism and necessary perfect masks”, by Barbara Vetter and Ralf Busse, forthcoming in Analysis.

Link to the paper: https://academic.oup.com/analysis/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/analys/anab061/6511667?redirectedFrom=fulltext

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!    

Support the Show.

Support the show on Patreon to gain instant access to searchable, comment-on-able PDF scripts of all solo episodes! Your support will help to defray hosting and equipment costs and is very much appreciated.

For this episode, I’m joined by Professor James Ladyman to discuss his paper "An Apology for Naturalized Metaphysics", published in 2017 by Oxford University Press in Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science edited by Matthew Slater and Zanja Yudell. James is professor of philosophy at the University of Bristol.

We discuss the nature of truth, disagreement in metaphysics and in science, conceptual conservatism and innovation, breaking free from the manifest image and much more.

Link to the paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/LADAAF
More about James: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/james-a-c-ladyman

If you enjoyed the show, please rate and review it on your favourite app so more people can find it. You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!   

Support the Show.

For this episode, I’m joined by Professor Nina Emery to discuss her paper “The Governing Conception of Laws", forthcoming in Ergo. Nina is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Mount Holyoak College. Nina is also the president-elect of the society for the metaphysics of science.

Link to the paper: https://philarchive.org/archive/EMETGC
More about Nina: http://www.ninaemery.org/
The Society for the Metaphysics of Science: https://socmetsci.org/

If you enjoyed the show, please rate and review it on your favourite app so more people can find it. You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!   

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes. You'll also now get access to PDF scripts of the solo episodes!

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!    

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes. You'll also now get access to PDF scripts of the solo episodes!

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!   

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes. You'll also now get access to PDF scripts of the solo episodes!

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!  

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes. You'll also now get access to PDF scripts of the solo episodes!

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!       

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes. I'm also thinking about what else I can offer Patreon supporters, so support the show and you'll be first to know!

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!      

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes.

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!       

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes.

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!      

Support the Show.

The measurement problem highlights a deeply puzzling feature of quantum mechanics: nature seems to obey one law when not measured and a completely different law when measured. But how does nature "recognise" measurement contexts?! What explains these shifts in how nature operates? 

For the Humean about laws, i.e., one who maintains that nature unthinkingly acts and the laws describe, these issues lose their bite. So perhaps there just is no measurement problem for Humeans! But if true, does this count for or against Humeanism? Listen and decide!

Here's a link to the paper

See also this paper by Hicks and Schaffer for detail on derivative properties featuring in fundamental laws, an idea that features centrally in Dorst's discussion.  

Support the Show.

Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes.

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!     

Support the Show.

 Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes.

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!     

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is E.J. Lowe's "The rationality of metaphysics", published in  Synthese in 2011.*

*I have a slip of the tongue in the recording and say that the paper was published in 2021! It was definitely published in 2011.

Click here for the article.

If you are enjoying Condensed Matter, please consider supporting the show on Patreon. In recognition of your support, you'll get the opportunity to suggest articles and guests for future episodes.

You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!    

Support the Show.

 For this episode, I’m joined by Professor Tuomas Tahko to discuss his paper “Where Do You Get Your Protein? Or: Biochemical Realization", published in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science in 2020. Tuomas is Professor of Metaphysics of Science at the University of Bristol and principal investigator on the ERC funded MetaScience project.

Link to the paper: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1093/bjps/axy044
More about Tuomas: https://www.ttahko.net/
The MetaScience project: https://metascience.xyz/

If you enjoyed the show, please rate and review it on your favourite app so more people can find it. You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!  

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Amie Thomasson’s article “Norms and Modality”, published in the Routledge Handbook of Modality in 2021.

Link to the article: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315742144-17/norms-modality-amie-thomasson

Amie Thomasson: https://philpapers.org/s/Amie%20L.%20Thomasson

If you enjoyed the show, please rate and review it on your favourite app so more people can find it. You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!   

Support the Show.

For this episode, I’m joined by Dr Michael Townsen Hicks to discuss his paper “What Everyone Should Say about Symmetries (and How Humeans Get to Say It)”, published in Philosophy of Science in 2019. Mike is a research fellow on the FramePhys project at the University of Birmingham.

Link to the paper: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/705475
More about Mike: https://www.townsenhicks.com/
The FraMEPhys project: https://framephys.org/

If you enjoyed the show, please rate and review it on your favourite app so more people can find it. You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening! 

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Harjit Bhogal’s article “Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature”, published in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics in 2020.

Link to the paper: https://philarchive.org/rec/BHONEA

If you enjoyed the show, please rate and review it on your favourite app so more people can find it. You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening!  

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Shamik Dasgupta's article "Realism and the Absence of Value", published in The Philosophical Review in 2018.

Link to the article: https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-philosophical-review/article-abstract/127/3/279/135296/Realism-and-the-Absence-of-Value

Also: http://shamik.net/papers/dasgupta%20realism%20and%20the%20absence%20of%20value.pdf

If you enjoyed the show, please rate and review it on your favourite app so more people can find it. You can carry on the discussion on Twitter and there's even an Instagram page. Thanks for listening! 

Support the Show.

In this episode, Dr Toby Friend and I take a deep dive into his article "Megarian Variable Actualism", published in Synthese in 2021.

Link to the paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-021-03257-7
More on Toby Friend: https://sites.google.com/view/tobyfriend

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Ned Markosian's paper "Sideways music, published in Analysis in 2019.

Link to the paper: https://academic.oup.com/analysis/article-abstract/80/1/51/5543488?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Support the Show.

This episode is about Sam Cowling's "The Limits of Modality" published in the Philosophical Quarterly in 2011.

Are all true propositions either contingent or necessary? Cowling argues that if we want to understand the metaphysics of modality in terms of possible worlds we should maintain that certain true propositions are neither contingent nor necessary but just true simpliciter. Is this conceptually coherent? Have a listen and make up your mind!

Here's a link to the paper.

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Jonathan Schaffer’s “The ground between the gaps”, published in Philosophers’ Imprint in 2017.

Link to the paper: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0017.011/--ground-between-the-gaps?view=image

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Ruth Groff’s article: “Conceptualizing causal powers: activity, capacity, essence, necessitation”. Published in Synthese in 2021 as part of the topical collection “New Foundations of Dispositionalism,” edited by Andrea Raimondi and Lorenzo Azzano.

Link to the paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-021-03229-x

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Justin Garson’s article "There Are No Ahistorical Theories of Function" published in Philosophy of Science in 2019. 
 
 Link: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/705472 

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Otávio Bueno and Scott Shalkowski’s article: Troubles with Theoretical Virtues: Resisting Theoretical Utility Arguments in Metaphysics, published in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research in 2019.
 
 Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phpr.12597

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is David Lewis’s "Ramseyan Humility" published In David Braddon-Mitchell & Robert Nola’s (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. MIT Press. 2009.

Link: https://philpapers.org/rec/LEWRH 

Support the Show.

This episode a two for one: I’ll be discussing an exchange between Alexander Bird and Barbara Vetter that takes the form of two articles, one by each author, published in the proceedings of the Aristotelian Society in 2018.
 
 Bird: https://academic.oup.com/aristoteliansupp/article-abstract/92/1/247/5032734
Vetter: https://academic.oup.com/aristoteliansupp/article-abstract/92/1/277/5032735

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Alisa Bokulich’s article "How scientific models can explain", published in Synthese in 2011.
 
 Link to the article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-009-9565-1

Support the Show.

Welcome to Condensed Matter, condensing recent work in metaphysics and the philosophy of science down to what matters.

Support the Show.

In the episode, I talk with Francesca Bellazzi about her paper "Biochemical Functions", which is forthcoming in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. We discuss the distinction between functions and mere accidents, the peculiar puzzle posed by biochemical functions, evolutionary explanations, the relationship between science and philosophy and much more!

Click here for the paper
Click here for more about Francesca
Click here for more about the MetaScience project 

Support the Show.

In this episode, I ask Donnchadh O'Conaill about themes from his book "Substance" which is forthcoming with Cambridge University Press as part of the Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics series. We cover the roles in metaphysical theorising that substance plays, candidate examples of substance, the methodology of metaphysics and its relationship to science among other things.

Click here for more about Donnchadh
Click here for the Elements in Metaphysics 

Support the Show.

In this episode, I talk to my Bristol MetaScience colleague, Dr Will Morgan, about his recently published paper in which he argues that if we accept the physiological approach to biological individuality, it seems that a foetus never becomes the organism that is present after birth. This then raises the difficult question: what happens to the foetus? We also touch on the relevance of metaphysics to biology and to ethics.

You can read the paper here
Click here for more about Will

Support the Show.

Was Quine really a modal sceptic--someone who thought that modality was unintelligible or paradoxical? Divers thinks he is better cast as a non-sceptical modal anti-realist.

Here's a link to the paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/122483/1/how%20Skeptical%3F.pdf

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Ross Cameron's "Modal Conventionalism" published in The Routledge Handbook of Modality in 2021.

Here is a link to the paper, but these handbooks are insanely expensive, which I suppose is a good reason to do more episodes based on their chapters! 

Support the Show.

The focus of this episode is Thomas Nagel’s “Panpsychism”, published by Cambridge University Press in his “Mortal Questions” anthology. 

This isn’t a recent paper, it was first published in 1979. But it is a nice, sober, discussion of panpsychism that makes quite clear a relatively sensible motivation for the view as well as what is involved in its denial. This all makes for a nice change to some of the rather heated public debates of the issue nowadays. So, call this a Condensed Matter classic. Maybe I’ll do more of these in future because I definitely think there are plenty of older papers out there that are worth revisiting in this format.

Link to the paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/NAGP

Support the Show.