BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Feraz Azhar

Feraz Azhar appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
physics.hist-phgr-qcastro-ph.COhep-thNeurons and Cognitioncond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechphysics.data-anQuantitative Methods

Catalog footprint

What is connected

8works
9topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Spacetime singularities and a novel formulation of indeterminism

Spacetime singularities in general relativity are commonly thought to be problematic, in that they signal a breakdown in the theory. We address the question of how to interpret this breakdown, restricting our attention to classical considerations (though our work has ramifications for more general classical metric theories of gravity, as well). In particular, we argue for a new claim: spacetime singularities in general relativity signal indeterminism. The usual manner in which indeterminism is formulated for physical theories can be traced back to Laplace. This formulation is based on the non-uniqueness of future (or past) states of a physical system -- as understood in the context of a physical theory -- as a result of the specification of an antecedent state (or, respectively, of a subsequent state). We contend that for physical theories generally, this formulation does not comprehensively capture the relevant sense of a lack of determination. And, in particular, it does not comprehensively capture the sense(s) in which a lack of determination (and so, indeterminism) arises due to spacetime singularities in general relativity. We thus present a novel, broader formulation, in which indeterminism in the context of some physical theory arises whenever one of the three following conditions holds: future (and/or past) states are (i) not unique -- as for Laplacian notions of indeterminism; (ii) not specified; or (iii) `incoherent' -- that is, they fail to satisfy certain desiderata that are internal to the theory and/or imposed from outside the theory. We apply this formulation to salient features of singularities in general relativity and show that this broader sense of indeterminism can comprehensively account for (our interpretation of) the breakdown signaled by their occurrence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Scientific Realism and Primordial Cosmology

We discuss scientific realism from the perspective of modern cosmology, especially primordial cosmology: i.e. the cosmological investigation of the very early universe. We first (Section 2) state our allegiance to scientific realism, and discuss what insights about it cosmology might yield, as against "just" supplying scientific claims that philosophers can then evaluate. In particular, we discuss: the idea of laws of cosmology, and limitations on ascertaining the global structure of spacetime. Then we review some of what is now known about the early universe (Section 3): meaning, roughly, from a thousandth of a second after the Big Bang onwards(!). The rest of the paper takes up two issues about primordial cosmology, i.e. the very early universe, where "very early" means, roughly, much earlier (logarithmically) than one second after the Big Bang: say, less than $10^{-11}$ seconds. Both issues illustrate that familiar philosophical threat to scientific realism, the under-determination of theory by data---on a cosmic scale. The first issue (Section 4) concerns the difficulty of observationally probing the very early universe. More specifically, the difficulty is to ascertain details of the putative inflationary epoch. The second issue (Section 5) concerns difficulties about confirming a cosmological theory that postulates a multiverse, i.e. a set of domains (universes) each of whose inhabitants (if any) cannot directly observe, or otherwise causally interact with, other domains. This again concerns inflation, since many inflationary models postulate a multiverse. For all these issues, it will be clear that much remains unsettled, as regards both physics and philosophy. But we will maintain that these remaining controversies do not threaten scientific realism.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Spectra of conditionalization and typicality in the multiverse

An approach to testing theories describing a multiverse, that has gained interest of late, involves comparing theory-generated probability distributions over observables with their experimentally measured values. It is likely that such distributions, were we indeed able to calculate them unambiguously, will assign low probabilities to any such experimental measurements. An alternative to thereby rejecting these theories, is to conditionalize the distributions involved by restricting attention to domains of the multiverse in which we might arise. In order to elicit a crisp prediction, however, one needs to make a further assumption about how typical we are of the chosen domains. In this paper, we investigate interactions between the spectra of available assumptions regarding both conditionalization and typicality, and draw out the effects of these interactions in a concrete setting; namely, on predictions of the total number of species that contribute significantly to dark matter. In particular, for each conditionalization scheme studied, we analyze how correlations between densities of different dark matter species affect the prediction, and explicate the effects of assumptions regarding typicality. We find that the effects of correlations can depend on the conditionalization scheme, and that in each case atypicality can significantly change the prediction. In doing so, we demonstrate the existence of overlaps in the predictions of different "frameworks" consisting of conjunctions of theory, conditionalization scheme and typicality assumption. This conclusion highlights the acute challenges involved in using such tests to identify a preferred framework that aims to describe our observational situation in a multiverse.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Three Aspects of Typicality in Multiverse Cosmology

Extracting predictions from cosmological theories that describe a multiverse, for what we are likely to observe in our domain, is crucial to establishing the validity of these theories. One way to extract such predictions is from theory-generated probability distributions that allow for selection effects---generally expressed in terms of assumptions about anthropic conditionalization and how typical we are. In this paper, I urge three lessons about typicality in multiverse settings. (i) Because it is difficult to characterize our observational situation in the multiverse, we cannot assume that we are typical (as in the 'principle of mediocrity'): nor can we ignore the issue of typicality, for it has a measurable impact on predictions for our observations. (ii) There are spectra of assumptions about both conditionalization and typicality, which lead to coincident predictions for our observations, leading to problems of confirmation in multiverse cosmology. And moreover, (iii) when one has the freedom to consider competing theories of the multiverse, the assumption of typicality may not lead to the highest likelihoods for our observations. These three entwined aspects of typicality imply that positive assertions about our typicality, such as the 'principle of mediocrity', are more questionable than has been recently claimed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Predicting single-neuron activity in locally connected networks

The characterization of coordinated activity in neuronal populations has received renewed interest in the light of advancing experimental techniques which allow recordings from multiple units simultaneously. Across both in vitro and in vivo preparations, nearby neurons show coordinated responses when spontaneously active, and when subject to external stimuli. Recent work (Truccolo, Hochberg, & Donoghue, 2010) has connected these coordinated responses to behavior, showing that small ensembles of neurons in arm related areas of sensorimotor cortex can reliably predict single-neuron spikes in behaving monkeys and humans. We investigate this phenomenon utilizing an analogous point process model, showing that in the case of a computational model of cortex responding to random background inputs, one is similarly able to predict the future state of a single neuron by considering its own spiking history, together with the spiking histories of randomly sampled ensembles of nearby neurons. This model exhibits realistic cortical architecture and displays bursting episodes in the two distinct connectivity schemes studied. We conjecture that the baseline predictability we find in these instances is characteristic of locally connected networks more broadly considered.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Prediction and typicality in multiverse cosmology

In the absence of a fundamental theory that precisely predicts values for observable parameters, anthropic reasoning attempts to constrain probability distributions over those parameters in order to facilitate the extraction of testable predictions. The utility of this approach has been vigorously debated of late, particularly in light of theories that claim we live in a multiverse, where parameters may take differing values in regions lying outside our observable horizon. Within this cosmological framework, we investigate the efficacy of top-down anthropic reasoning based on the weak anthropic principle. We argue contrary to recent claims that it is not clear one can either dispense with notions of typicality altogether or presume typicality, in comparing resulting probability distributions with observations. We show in a concrete, top-down setting related to dark matter, that assumptions about typicality can dramatically affect predictions, thereby providing a guide to how errors in reasoning regarding typicality translate to errors in the assessment of predictive power. We conjecture that this dependence on typicality is an integral feature of anthropic reasoning in broader cosmological contexts, and argue in favour of the explicit inclusion of measures of typicality in schemes invoking anthropic reasoning, with a view to extracting predictions from multiverse scenarios.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Testing typicality in multiverse cosmology

In extracting predictions from theories that describe a multiverse, we face the difficulty that we must assess probability distributions over possible observations, prescribed not just by an underlying theory, but by a theory together with a conditionalization scheme that allows for (anthropic) selection effects. This means we usually need to compare distributions that are consistent with a broad range of possible observations, with actual experimental data. One controversial means of making this comparison is by invoking the 'principle of mediocrity': that is, the principle that we are typical of the reference class implicit in the conjunction of the theory and the conditionalization scheme. In this paper, I quantitatively assess the principle of mediocrity in a range of cosmological settings, employing 'xerographic distributions' to impose a variety of assumptions regarding typicality. I find that for a fixed theory, the assumption that we are typical gives rise to higher likelihoods for our observations. If, however, one allows both the underlying theory and the assumption of typicality to vary, then the assumption of typicality does not always provide the highest likelihoods. Interpreted from a Bayesian perspective, these results support the claim that when one has the freedom to consider different combinations of theories and xerographic distributions (or different 'frameworks'), one should favor the framework that has the highest posterior probability; and then from this framework one can infer, in particular, how typical we are. In this way, the invocation of the principle of mediocrity is more questionable than has been recently claimed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

When are correlations strong?

The inverse problem of statistical mechanics involves finding the minimal Hamiltonian that is consistent with some observed set of correlation functions. This problem has received renewed interest in the analysis of biological networks; in particular, several such networks have been described successfully by maximum entropy models consistent with pairwise correlations. These correlations are usually weak in an absolute sense (e.g., correlation coefficients ~ 0.1 or less), and this is sometimes taken as evidence against the existence of interesting collective behavior in the network. If correlations are weak, it should be possible to capture their effects in perturbation theory, so we develop an expansion for the entropy of Ising systems in powers of the correlations, carrying this out to fourth order. We then consider recent work on networks of neurons [Schneidman et al., Nature 440, 1007 (2006); Tkacik et al., arXiv:0912.5409 [q-bio.NC] (2009)], and show that even though all pairwise correlations are weak, the fact that these correlations are widespread means that their impact on the network as a whole is not captured in the leading orders of perturbation theory. More positively, this means that recent successes of maximum entropy approaches are not simply the result of correlations being weak.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access