Talks by Philipp Berghofer
Fitch’s paradox of knowability proves that, necessarily, if there is an unknown truth, then there... more Fitch’s paradox of knowability proves that, necessarily, if there is an unknown truth, then there is an unknowable truth, a truth that could not possibly be known. As we are not omniscient, we have to conclude that there are unknowable truths. I discuss the impact of Fitch’s argument on the question whether there are limits to (human) knowledge and I will show that there is no impact at all.
Papers by Philipp Berghofer
What is the nature of science, what are its fundamental lessons about the nature of reality, and ... more What is the nature of science, what are its fundamental lessons about the nature of reality, and what is its relationship to subjectivity? This chapter provides an overview of the contemporary scientific realism debate and assesses how phenomenological ideas bear on it. It discusses the relationship between phenomenology and the individual sciences and explores the implications of phenomenological teachings concerning the horizonal structure of experience, the epistemic status of the life-world, and the mathematization of nature for our understanding of science. The author contrasts phenomenological approaches to science with objectivism, addressing how modern physics can be interpreted as supporting the former over the latter.
This chapter reexamines wave function realism (WFR) through the lens of phenomenology. We begin b... more This chapter reexamines wave function realism (WFR) through the lens of phenomenology. We begin by situating WFR within the broader debate about the ontology of the quantum state and the temptation to "read off" metaphysics from mathematical formalism. Against this background, we turn to the London-Bauer interpretation (LBI), the most explicit attempt to interpret quantum mechanics through phenomenological categories. On this view, the measurement transition is not a physical discontinuity but a reflective articulation of objectivity, and the wave function formally encodes the horizonal structure of world-givenness. We develop this idea by reconfiguring the notion of realism itself: not as objectivist, but as correlational and transcendental. The resulting picture suggests that quantum mechanics, rather than depicting a world "minus observers," mathematically articulates the very correlation through which a world becomes manifest at all.
Synthese, 2025
Although contemporary analytic epistemology continues to be dominated by externalist accounts, an... more Although contemporary analytic epistemology continues to be dominated by externalist accounts, an alternative internalist approach has recently emerged that emphasizes the epistemic role of consciousness, in particular of conscious experience. According to the phenomenological experience-first epistemology (PEFE) discussed in this paper, certain experiences constitute a source of immediate justification as well as our ultimate evidence. One reason why internalist approaches are less popular in current debates is the common assumption that externalism fits better with scientific practice. In this picture, the natural sciences are typically understood as adopting a third-person perspective that successfully abstracts away from the subject and her personal experiences. Here, I discuss an alternative view of science, namely science as understood within the framework of agent-centered approaches to quantum mechanics. More specifically, my focus will be on QBism, a highly controversial but increasingly popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, whose defining feature is the interpretation of quantum probabilities as subjective Bayesian probabilities. The objective of this paper is to clarify the relationship between epistemology and science under the assumption that both PEFE and QBism are correct.
Foundations of Physics, 2024
There is solid consensus among physicists and philosophers that, in gauge field theory, for a qua... more There is solid consensus among physicists and philosophers that, in gauge field theory, for a quantity to be physically meaningful or real, it must be gauge-invariant. Yet, every “elementary” field in the Standard Model of particle physics is actually gauge-variant. This has led a number of researchers to insist that new manifestly gauge-invariant approaches must be established. Indeed, in the foundational literature, dissatisfaction with standard methods for reducing gauge symmetries has been expressed: Spontaneous symmetry breaking is deemed conceptually dubious, while gauge fixing suffers the same limitations and is subject to the same criticisms as coordinate choices in General Relativity. An alternative gauge-invariant proposal was recently introduced in the literature, the so-called “dressing field method” (DFM). It is a mathematically subtle tool, and unfortunately prone to be confused with simple gauge transformations, hence with standard gauge fixings. As a matter of fact, in the physics literature the two are often conflated, and in the philosophy community some doubts have been raised about whether there is any substantial difference between them. Clarifying this issue is of special significance for anyone interested in both the foundational issues of gauge theories and their invariant formulation. It is thus our objective to establish as precisely as possible the technical and conceptual distinctions between the DFM and gauge fixing.
Foundations of Physics, 2024
In quantum foundations, there is growing interest in the program of reconstructing the quantum fo... more In quantum foundations, there is growing interest in the program of reconstructing the quantum formalism from clear physical principles. These reconstructions are formulated in an operational framework, deriving the formalism from information-theoretic principles. It has been recognized that this project is in tension with standard ψ-ontic interpretations. This paper presupposes that the quantum reconstruction program (QRP) (i) is a worthwhile project and (ii) puts pressure on ψ-ontic interpretations. Where does this leave us? Prima facie, it seems that ψ-epistemic interpretations perfectly fit the spirit of information-based reconstructions. However, ψ-epistemic interpretations, understood as saying that the wave functions represents one's knowledge about a physical system, recently have been challenged on technical and conceptual grounds. More importantly, for some researchers working on reconstructions, the lesson of successful reconstructions is that the wave function does not represent objective facts about the world. Since knowledge is a factive concept, this speaks against epistemic interpretations. In this paper, I discuss whether ψ-doxastic interpretations constitute a reasonable alternative. My thesis is that if we want to engage QRP with ψ-doxastic interpretations, then we should aim at a reconstruction that is spelled out in non-factive experiential terms.
European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2024
The program of reconstructing quantum theory based on information-theoretic principles enjoys muc... more The program of reconstructing quantum theory based on information-theoretic principles enjoys much popularity in the foundations of physics. Surprisingly, this endeavor has only received very little attention in philosophy. Here I argue that this should change. This is because, on the one hand, reconstructions can help us to better understand quantum mechanics, and, on the other hand, reconstructions are themselves in need of interpretation. My overall objective, thus, is to motivate the reconstruction program and to show why philosophers should care. My specific aims are threefold. (i) Clarify the relationship between reconstructing and interpreting quantum mechanics, (ii) show how the informational reconstruction of quantum theory puts pressure on standard realist interpretations, (iii) defend the quantum reconstruction program against possible objections.
In his influential paper "Grasping the Third Realm," John Bengson raises the question of how we c... more In his influential paper "Grasping the Third Realm," John Bengson raises the question of how we can non-accidentally grasp abstract facts. What distinguishes successful intuition from hallucinatory intuition? Bengson answers his "non-accidental relation question" by arguing for a constitutive relationship: The intuited object is a literal constituent of the respective intuition. Now, the problem my contribution centers around is that Bengson's answer cannot be the end of the story. This is because, as Bar Luzon and Preston Werner have recently pointed out, this answer leads to the follow-up question of why certain intuitional experiences are constituted by the facts, but others are not. My objective is to answer this question by specifying precisely what is epistemically defective about intellectual hallucinations. My result is that, in stark contrast to perception, intellectual hallucinations are epistemically defective in the sense that something is overlooked. In successful intuition, by contrast, all relevant possibilities/scenarios are considered/imagined. This has crucial epistemological implications. In particular, I argue that intuitions exhibiting a certain phenomenology cannot fail to successfully grasp abstract facts. I call this the non-accidental correctness thesis, which constitutes the main thesis of this paper.
In 1967, Alvin Goldman prominently claimed that the traditional JTB analysis is adequate for none... more In 1967, Alvin Goldman prominently claimed that the traditional JTB analysis is adequate for nonempirical knowledge. Since then, this claim has remained widely unchallenged. In this paper, I show that this claim is false. I provide two examples in which a true belief is a priori justified but epistemically defective such that it does not constitute knowledge. Finally, I submit a novel analysis of a priori knowledge that avoids the Gettier problem. What is particularly important and distinctive about my analysis is that I neither need to make the justification condition so strong that only infallible justification is allowed, nor do I need to explicitly introduce a truth condition.
This is the first volume that focuses specifically on phenomenological approaches to quantum mech... more This is the first volume that focuses specifically on phenomenological approaches to quantum mechanics. It is also the first volume focusing on the philosophical implications of QBism. This coincidence is not accidental. Phenomenology's rich potential for our understanding of quantum mechanics has long been overlooked by analytic philosophers and phenomenologists alike. The experience-first approach of phenomenology, its descriptive methodology, and Husserl’s critique of mathematization do not sit well with “mainstream” analytic philosophy of physics. But as this volume will demonstrate, it sits nicely with the basic tenets of QBism. Conversely, QBism constitutes the most consistent and best-developed interpretation of quantum mechanics that fully embraces the Bohrian idea that “the primitive concept of experience is fundamental to an understanding of science” (Fuchs et al. 2014, 749). However, since its inception in the early 2000s, QBism has struggled to connect with the philosophical community. Not only are the underlying intuitions shaping and dominating contemporary philosophy of quantum mechanics—namely, that a scientific theory must be purged of all subjective and operational notions such as “experience” or “measurement” and that, consequently, a successful approach to quantum mechanics must be formulated as a “quantum theory without observers”—at odds with QBism. It seems that sometimes the incommensurability already starts at the level of the basic conceptual framework which, in the case of mainstream analytic philosophy, is not very well suited to express some of QBism’s main tenets. Considering this situation, the main hypothesis of this volume is that phenomenology and QBism are natural bedfellows, and that both can profit from mutual exchange. In order to make this exchange as profitable as possible, the aim of this introductory chapter is to identify, clarify, and motivate some of the cornerstones of phenomenological approaches to quantum mechanics, to shed light on the main ideas and virtues of QBism, and to discuss points of contact and points of possible conflict between these two projects.
Husserl argued that psychology needs to establish an abstraction that is opposite to the abstract... more Husserl argued that psychology needs to establish an abstraction that is opposite to the abstraction successfully established in the natural sciences. While the natural sciences abstract away the psychological or subjective, psychology must abstract away the physical or worldly. However, Husserl and other phenomenologists such as Iso Kern have argued that there is a crucial systematic disanalogy between both abstractions. While the abstraction of the natural sciences can be performed completely, the abstraction of psychology cannot. In this context, Husserl argues that the psychological reduction leads to paradoxes. In this paper, I critically discuss whether it is true that the natural sciences can successfully abstract away the subjective. Or more precisely, I raise the question of whether they should.
This paper aims at demystifying the doctrine of originary givenness. By the doctrine of originary... more This paper aims at demystifying the doctrine of originary givenness. By the doctrine of originary givenness I understand the Husserlian claims that (i) originary presentive experiences are a source of immediate justification, (ii) originary presentive experiences are our ultimate source of justification, and (iii) originary presentive experiences gain their justificatory force precisely from their phenomenal character of originary givenness. It is shown that these claims are immune to Sellars' objections. Clarifying why the doctrine of originary givenness avoids Sellars' objections will help us to better understand the relationship between experience and belief as well as the relationship between experiential justification and inferential justification.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this p... more The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this p... more The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
Recently, perceptual learning has become a focus of philosophical investigations. This is because... more Recently, perceptual learning has become a focus of philosophical investigations. This is because the phenomenon of perceptual learning sheds light on the nature of perception. It tells us that the physical objects that are perceived are not the sole causes of perceptual states, it reveals that previous experiences shape the way we perceive, and it brings into focus an experience’s phenomenal character. Hence, there is no doubt that perceptual learning has crucial implications for philosophy of mind. Only very recently, however, have researchers begun to investigate whether we can draw genuinely epistemological lessons from perceptual learning. In the first section, we shall see that such epistemological lessons do indeed exist. The rest of the paper is devoted to showing that there are analogous cases of intuitional learning. By discussing simple examples, it is argued that such cases of intuitional learning suggest that intuitions are sui generis mental states, namely experiences that have a distinctive phenomenal character, and that it is this distinctive phenomenal character that makes intuitions a source of immediate justification.
Evidentialism and mentalism enjoy much popularity. In fact, mentalist evidentialism is often cons... more Evidentialism and mentalism enjoy much popularity. In fact, mentalist evidentialism is often considered the most plausible internalist approach towards epistemic justification. However, mentalist evidentialism does not amount to a comprehensive theory of epistemic justification. In their attempt to complete their epistemological system and to answer the question of why experiences are justifiers, Conee and Feldman supplement mentalist evidentialism with explanationism. They take principles of best explanation to be the fundamental epistemic principles. In this paper, I show that explanationist mentalist evidentialism is plagued by severe shortcomings. What is more, I argue for an alternative in the spirit of Conee and Feldman's internalism that avoids the problems of explanationism, offering a straightforward commonsense account of epistemic justification. The fundamental epistemological principles are phenomenological principles.
Recently, a number of phenomenological approaches to experiential justification emerged according... more Recently, a number of phenomenological approaches to experiential justification emerged according to which an experience's justificatory force is grounded in the experience's distinctive phenomenology. The basic idea is that certain experiences exhibit a presentive phenomenology and that they are a source of immediate justification precisely by virtue of their presentive phenomenology. Such phenomenological approaches usually focus on perceptual experiences and mathematical intuitions. In this paper, I aim at a phenomenological approach to ethical experiences. I shall show that we need to make a distinction between evaluative experiences directed at concrete cases and ethical intuitions directed at general principles. The focus will be on evaluative experiences. I argue that evaluative experiences constitute a sui generis type of experience that gain their justificatory force by virtue of their presentive evaluative phenomenology. In section 1, I introduce and motivate the phenomenological idea that certain experiences exhibit a justification-conferring phenomenology. In section 4, I apply this idea to morally evaluative experiences. In section 5, I suggest that certain epistemic intuitions should be considered epistemically evaluative experiences and I outline a strong parallelism between ethics and epistemology.
As is well known, the late Husserl warned against the dangers of reifying and objec-tifying the m... more As is well known, the late Husserl warned against the dangers of reifying and objec-tifying the mathematical models that operate at the heart of our physical theories. Although Husserl's worries were mainly directed at Galilean physics, the first aim of our paper is to show that many of his critical arguments are no less relevant today. By addressing the formalism and current interpretations of quantum theory, we illustrate how topics surrounding the mathematization of nature come to the fore naturally. Our second aim is to consider the program of reconstructing quantum theory, a program that currently enjoys popularity in the field of quantum foundations. We will conclude by arguing that, seen from this vantage point, certain insights delivered by phenomenology and quantum theory regarding perspectivity are remarkably concordant. Our overall hope with this paper is to show that there is much room for mutual learning between phenomenology and modern physics.
Husserlian phenomenology is an ambitious project, aiming to be First Philosophy, the ultimate sci... more Husserlian phenomenology is an ambitious project, aiming to be First Philosophy, the ultimate science. For Husserl, this means that for any science, indeed for any piece of knowledge, phenomenology must be capable of elucidating the legitimacy of this science or piece of knowledge. But how can phenomenology, a science of the structures of consciousness, serve as the ultimate science? To answer this question, we shed light on Husserl’s teachings on the variety, epistemic force, and systematic role of experiences. The idea, roughly, is that every piece of knowledge can be traced back to epistemically foundational experiences. To be more precise, it is experiences that bear the mark of originary givenness that play this role. Investigating the sources of knowledge, then, means investigating modes of givenness – the ways experiences present the objects they are directed at. Perceptual experiences, introspective experiences, eidetic intuitions, and evaluative experiences are among the various types of originary presentive experiences. In our Husserlian picture, different sources of knowledge correspond to different types of experiences, which in turn correspond to different types of evidence. It is one of the most important tasks of phenomenology to clarify these correlations.
In current debates, many philosophers of science have sympathies for the project of introducing a... more In current debates, many philosophers of science have sympathies for the project of introducing a new approach to the scientific realism debate that forges a middle way between traditional forms of scientific realism and anti-realism. One promising approach is perspectivism. Although different proponents of perspectivism differ in their respective characterizations of perspectivism, the common idea is that scientific knowledge is necessarily partial and incomplete. Perspectivism is a new position in current debates but it does have its forerunners. Figures that are typically mentioned in this context include Dewey, Feyerabend, Leibniz, Kant, Kuhn, and Putnam. Interestingly, to my knowledge, there exists no work that discusses similarities to the phenomenological tradition. This is surprising because here one can find systematically similar ideas and even a very similar terminology. It is startling because early modern physics was noticeably influenced by phe-nomenological ideas. And it is unfortunate because the analysis of perspectival approaches in the phenomenological tradition can help us to achieve a more nuanced understanding of different forms of perspectivism. The main objective of this paper is to show that in the phenomenological tradition one finds a well-elaborated philosophy of science that shares important similarities with current versions of perspectivism. Engaging with the phenomenological tradition is also of systematic value since it helps us to gain a better understanding of the distinctive claims of perspectivism and to distinguish various grades of perspectivism.
Uploads
Talks by Philipp Berghofer
Papers by Philipp Berghofer