Perspective Duality as a Physical Requirement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philosophers of physics, when engaged in matters they regard as fundamental, tend to focus their analyses on fictitious systems that are wholly isolated from their environments. When pressed, they retreat to the fiction of treating the universe as a whole as an object of scientific study. This is nothing at all like the way science is practiced. Even if a system can be insulated in such a way that its interactions with its surroundings are negligible, one only ever explicitly models a minute fraction of the degrees of freedom of the system, and, as the degrees of freedom explicitly considered interact with those that are not, those degrees of freedom that are treated in the model constitute what is, in effect, an open system. The thought behind this seems to be that this situation is a mere expedient, and that answers to all questions of import are to be found in the investigation of isolated systems. In this paper, I will argue that this is incorrect. Although J. S. Bell was correct to say that a fundamental physical theory should be formulable without recourse to terms such as system, apparatus, and environment, I will argue that any physical theory worth its salt should also be capable of not representing the entire universe, and should admit of a formulation with exogenous parameters. This leads to a stance I call perspective duality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".