Calling for explanation: the case of the thermodynamic past state

Albert, D. Z. (2000). Time and chance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Allori, V. (2015). Maxwell’s paradox: The metaphysics of classical electrodynamics and its time-reversal invariance. Αnalytica, 1, 1–19.

Atkinson, D. (2006). Does quantum electrodynamics have an arrow of time? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37, 528–541.

Baras, D. (n.d.). Calling for explanation: An extraordinary account. https://www.academia.edu/38849164/Calling_for_Explanation_An_Extraordinary_Account. Accessed 23 June 2020. 

Baras, D. (2020). A strike against a striking principle. Philosophical Studies, 177(6), 1501–1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01265-5.

Baras, D. (2019). Why do certain states of affairs call out for explanation? A critique of two Horwichian accounts. Philosophia, 47(5), 1405–1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-018-0047-x.

Ben Menahem, Y. (2018). Causation in science. Princeton University Press.

Callender, C. (2004a). Measures, explanations and the past: Should ‘special’ initial conditions be explained? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/55.2.195.

Callender, C. (2004b). There is no puzzle about the low entropy past. In C. R. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of science (pp. 240–256). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Callender, C. (2010). The past hypothesis meets gravity. In G. Ernst & A. Huttemann (Eds.), Time, chance and reduction (pp. 34–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770777.003.

Carroll, S. (2010). From eternity to here. New York: Dutton.

Carroll, S., & Chen, J. (2004). Spontaneous inflation and the origin of the arrow of time. arXiv: hep-th/0410270

Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon.

Cartwright, N. (2004). Causation: One word, many things. Philosophy of Science, 71, 805–819.

Dürr, D. (2001). Bohmain mechanics. In J. Bricmont, D. Dürr, M. C. Galavotti, et al. (Eds.), Chance in physics: Foundations and perspectives (pp. 115–132). Lecture Notes in Physics: Springer-Verlag.

Earman, J. (2006). The ‘past hypothesis’: Not even false. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37(3), 399–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2006.03.002.

Einstein, A. (1919). “Time, space, and gravitation,” Times London, 28 November 1919, 13–14. Reprinted as “What is the theory of relativity?”. In Ideas and opinions (pp. 227–232). New York: Bonanza Books, 1954.

Einstein, A. (1970). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Faye, J. (2018). Backward Causation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/causationbackwards/.

Feynman, R. (1967). The character of physical law. MIT Press.

Field, H. (1989). Realism, mathematics, and modality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Fodor, J. (1974). Special sciences, or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis. Synthese, 28, 97–115.

Fodor, J. (1997). Special sciences: Still autonomous after all these years. Nous, 31, 149–163.

Frigg, R. (2008). A Field guide to recent work on the foundations of statistical mechanics. In D. Rickles (Ed.), The Ashgate Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Physics. London: Ashgate.

Frisch, M. (2010). Does a low-entropy constraint prevent us from influencing the past? In G. Ernst & A. Huttemann (Eds.), Time, chance and reduction (pp. 13–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frisch, M. (2014). Causal reasoning in physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goldstein, S. (2012). Typicality and notions of probability in physics. In Y. Ben-Menahem & M. Hemmo (Eds.), Probability in physics (pp. 59–72). The Frontiers Collection, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., & Zanghì, N. (2016). Is the hypothesis about a low entropy initial state of the universe necessary for explaining the arrow of time? Physical Review D, 94(2), 023520. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023520.

Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183532.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2001). Can we explain thermodynamics by quantum Decoherence? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 32(4), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-2198(01)00029-6.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2003). Quantum decoherence and the approach to equilibrium. Philosophy of Science, 70(2), 330–358. https://doi.org/10.1086/375471.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2005). Quantum decoherence and the approach to equilibrium (II). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 36(4), 626–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2005.04.005.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2010). Maxwell’s demon. The Journal of Philosophy, 107(8), 389–411.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2012). The road to Maxwell’s demon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139095167.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2015). Probability and typicality in deterministic physics. Erkenntnis, 80, 575–586.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2016). Maxwell’s demon. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.63.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2019). The past hypothesis and the psychological arrow of time. British Journal for Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz038.

Hemmo, M., & Shenker, O. (2020). Can one explain the psychological time arrow by the past hypothesis? In V. Allori (Ed.), Statistical mechanics and scientific explanation: Determinism, indeterminism and laws of nature. World Scientific. Forthcoming.

Hoefer, C. (2002). Freedom from the inside out. In C. Callender (Ed.), Time, reality and experience. Cambridge University Press.

Kolmogorov, A. N. (1950). Foundations of the theory of probability. Chelsea Publishing Company.

Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. London: Routledge.

Loewer, B. (2001). Determinism and chance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 32(4), 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-2198(01)00028-4.

Loewer, B. (2012). Two accounts of laws and time. Philosophical Studies, 160(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9911-x.

Manson, N. A. (1998). Why cosmic fine-tuning needs to be explained. Syracuse University.

Menzies, P. (2017). Counterfactual theories of causation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/causation-counterfactual/.

Mulgan, T. (2015). Purpose in the universe. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646142.001.0001.

Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199919758.001.0001.

Norton, J. (2007). Causation as folk science. In H. Price & R. Corry (Eds.), Causation, physics, and the constitution of reality (pp. 11–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Norton, J. (2009). Is there an independent principle of causality in physics? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 475–486.

Parfit, D. (1998). Why anything? Why this? London Review of Books, 20(2).

Pitowsky, I. (2012). Typicality and the role of the Lebesgue measure in statistical mechanics. In Y. Ben-Menahem & M. Hemmo (Eds.), Probability in physics (pp. 41–58). The Frontiers Collection, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Price, H. (1997). Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195117981.001.0001.

Price, H. (2002). Boltzmann’s time bomb. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53(1), 83–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/53.1.83.

Price, H. (2004). On the origins of the arrow of time: Why there is still a puzzle about the low-entropy past. In Contemporary debates in philosophy of science (pp. 219–239). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ross, D., Ladyman, J., & Spurrett, D. (2007). In defence of scientism. In J. Ladyman, D. Ross, D. Spurrett, & J. Collier (Eds.), In every thing must go (pp. 1–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Russell, B. (1913). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13, 1–26.

Schechter, J. (2010). The reliability challenge and the epistemology of logic. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2010.00199.x.

Schechter, J. (2018). Is there a reliability challenge for logic? Philosophical Issues, 28(1), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12128.

Shenker, O. (2017a). Foundation of statistical mechanics: Mechanics by itself. Philosophy Compass, 12(12), e12465. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12465.

Shenker, O. (2017b). Foundation of statistical mechanics: The auxiliary hypotheses. Philosophy Compass,12(12), e12464. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12464.

Shenker, O. (2019). Information vs. entropy vs. probability. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-019-0274-4.

Sklar, L. (1973). Statistical explanation and ergodic theory. Philosophy of Science, 40(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1086/288515.

Smolin, L. (1997). The life of the Cosmos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Street, S. (2008). Reply to Copp: Naturalism, normativity, and the varieties of realism worth worrying about. Philosophical Issues, 18(1), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2008.00145.x.

Uffink, J. (2007). Compendium to the foundations of classical statistical physics. In J. Butterfield, & J. Earman (Eds.), Handbook for the philosophy of physics, Part B (pp. 923–1074). London: Elsevier.

Uffink, J., & Valente, G. (2010). Time’s arrow and Lanford’s theorem. Le Temps, December. Institut Henri Poincaré, pp. 141–73.

Uffink, J., & Valente, G. (2015). Lanford’s theorem and the emergence of irreversibility. Foundations of Physics, 45(4), 404–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-015-9871-z.

van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198248601.001.0001.

van Inwagen, P. (1993). Metaphysics (1st ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.

Wallace, D. (2001). Implications of quantum theory in the foundations of statistical mechanics. PhilSci archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/410. Accessed 6 June 2020. 

Wallace, D. (2017). The nature of the past hypothesis. In K. Chamcham, J. Silk, J. D. Barrow, & S. Saunders (Eds.), The philosophy of cosmology (pp. 486–499). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316535783.025.

Wallace, D. (2020). The logic of the past hypothesis. In B. Loewer, B. Weslake, & A. Winsberg (Eds.), Time’s arrow and the origin of the universe: Reflections on time and chance: Essays in honor of David Albert’s work. Harvard University Press. Forthcoming.

Weintraub, R. (2018). Scepticism about inference to the best explanation. In K. McCain & T. Poston (Ed.), Best explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198746904.003.0012.

White, R. (2005). Explanation as a guide to induction. Philosophers’ Imprint, 5(2), 1–29.

White, R. (2018). The argument from cosmological fine-tuning. In G. Rosen, A. Byrne, J. Cohen, S. V. Shiffrin, & E. Harman (Eds.), The Norton introduction to philosophy (2nd ed., pp. 29–35). New York: Norton.

Winsberg, E. (2012). Bumps on the road to here (from eternity). Entropy, 14(3), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.3390/e14030390.

Woodward, J. F. (2014). Scientific explanation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University.