Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives on the Cosmological Constant

Author:

Koberinski Adam1ORCID,Falck Bridget2,Smeenk Chris3

Affiliation:

1. Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA

2. Independent Researcher, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA

3. Department of Philosophy and Rotman Institute of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada

Abstract

The (re)introduction of Λ into cosmology has spurred debates that touch on central questions in philosophy of science, as well as the foundations of general relativity and particle physics. We provide a systematic assessment of the often implicit philosophical assumptions guiding the methodology of precision cosmology in relation to dark energy. We start by briefly introducing a recent account of scientific progress in terms of risky and constrained lines of inquiry. This allows us to contrast aspects of Λ that make it relevantly different from other theoretical entities in science, such as its remoteness from direct observation or manipulability. We lay out a classification for possible ways to explain apparent accelerated expansion but conclude that these conceptually clear distinctions may blur heavily in practice. Finally, we consider the important role played in cosmology by critical tests of background assumptions, approximation techniques, and core principles, arguing that the weak anthropic principle fits into this category. We argue that some core typicality assumptions—such as the Copernican principle and the cosmological principle—are necessary though not provable, while others—such as the strong anthropic principle and appeals to naturalness or probability in the multiverse—are not similarly justifiable.

Funder

Templeton Foundation Grant “New Directions in Philosophy of Cosmology”

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Physics and Astronomy

Reference81 articles.

1. McIntyre, L. (2019). The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience, The MIT Press.

2. Zalta, E.N. (2021). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

3. Longino, H.E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton University Press.

4. Zalta, E.N. (2021). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

5. Zalta, E.N. (2021). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3