Neutral monism is a position in metaphysics defended by Mach, James, and Russell in the early twentieth century. It holds that minds and physical objects are essentially two different orderings of the same underlying neutral elements of nature. This paper sets out some of the central concepts, theses and the historical background of ideas that inform this doctrine of elements. The discussion begins with the classic neutral monism of Mach, James, and Russell in the first part of (...) the paper, then considers recent neo-Russellian versions in the second half. The chances for a revival of neutral monism are probably slight; its key ideas and starting points lie far from those in contemporary philosophy of mind. A better route might be through the philosophy of science and a deeper understanding of causation. (shrink)

Despite the widespread presence of public arts funding in liberal societies, some liberals find it unjustified. According to the Neutrality Objection, arts funding preferences some ways of life. One way to motivate this challenge is to say that a public goods-styled justification, although it could relieve arts funding of these worries of partiality, cannot be argued for coherently or is, in the end, too susceptible to impressions of partiality. I argue that diversity-based arts funding can overcome this challenge, because it (...) invests in non-excludable infrastructure that fosters cultural literacy. We all have some interest as citizens in living in a society which fosters cultural literacy, seeing as this helps others to understand us, supports us to understand ourselves, and helps alleviate confusion and alienation we feel toward social difference. While some of these benefits can be enjoyed by those who make and consume art, they are also gained by those who don’t, because arts funding affects the makeup of public spaces and the communicative practices we all use to make sense of the world. (shrink)

Conceptual Engineering alleges that philosophical problems are best treated via revising or replacing our concepts (or words). The goal here is not to defend Conceptual Engineering but rather show that it can (and should) invoke Neutralism—the broad view that philosophical progress can take place when (and sometimes only when) a thoroughly neutral, non-specific theory, treatment, or methodology is adopted. A neutralist treatment of one form of skepticism is used as a case study and is compared with various non-neutral (...) rivals. Along the way, a new taxonomy for paradox is proposed. (shrink)

(Winner of The Res Publica Essay Prize) This article defends a moderate version of state perfectionism by using Gerald Gaus’s argument for liberal neutrality as a starting point of discussion. Many liberal neutralists reject perfectionism on the grounds of respect for persons, but Gaus has explained more clearly than most neutralists how respect for persons justifies neutrality. Against neutralists, I first argue that the state may promote the good life by appealing to what can be called “the qualified judgments about (...) the good life,” which have not been considered by liberal perfectionists including Joseph Chan and Steven Wall. Then I clear up several possible misunderstandings of these judgments, and argue that: (a) moderate perfectionism does not rely on controversial rankings of values and is committed to promoting different valuable ways of life by pluralistic promotion; and (b) moderate perfectionism requires only an indirect form of coercion in using tax money to support certain moderate perfectionist measures, which is justifiable on the grounds of citizens’ welfare. Thus, I maintain that moderate perfectionism does not disrespect citizens, and is not necessarily unfair to any particular group of people. It is, in fact, plausible and morally important. The defence of moderate perfectionism has practical implications for the state’s policies regarding art development, drug abuse, public education, and so on. (shrink)

Epistemologists often claim that in addition to belief and disbelief there is a third, neutral, doxastic attitude. Various terms are used: ‘suspending judgment’, ‘withholding’, ‘agnosticism’. It is also common to claim that the factors relevant to the justification of these attitudes are epistemic in the narrow sense of being factors that bear on the strength or weakness of one’s epistemic position with respect to the target proposition. This paper addresses two challenges to such traditionalism about doxastic attitudes. The first (...) concerns the relevance of non-epistemic factors we might call "future-comparative" – e.g., that you’ll have more decisive evidence on whether p tomorrow – to the justification of suspending judgment. The second, from Jane Friedman, is to explain the point of the neutral attitude without appealing to inquiry and thus taking goal-related factors, which are not epistemic, such as the value of the goal or the prospects for finding means to achieve it, to bear on the justification of the neutral attitude. My defense of traditionalism relies on distinguishing three ways of being neutral on a question: agnosticism, inquiry and suspension of judgment. Traditionalism is saved because, of these, agnosticism alone is a genuine doxastic attitude. (shrink)

According to the “Textbook View,” there is an extensional dispute between consequentialists and deontologists, in virtue of the fact that only the latter defend “agent-relative” principles—principles that require an agent to have a special concern with making sure that she does not perform certain types of action. I argue that, contra the Textbook View, there are agent-neutral versions of deontology. I also argue that there need be no extensional disagreement between the deontologist and consequentialist, as characterized by the Textbook (...) View. (shrink)

The Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Laws (SNSFL) is a formally verified framework built in Lean 4 against Mathlib that reduces physical, psychological, computational, and cosmological phenomena to four irreducible primitives: Pattern (P), Narrative (N), Behavior (B), and Adaptation (A). -/- This paper presents the framework as it actually exists in source code: the 15 Sovereign Laws proved in SNSFL_L0_SovereignLaws.lean [9,9,9,0]; the Long Division reduction method applied across eight classical domains in dedicated reduction files; the First Law of Identity Physics and (...) its four diagnostic instruments (τ, IM, SL, Pv) derived in SNSFL_First_Law_Identity_Physics.lean [9,9,4,2]; the six Forge theorems synthesizing crossdomain structural claims in SNSFL_Forge_L1.lean [9,9,3,1]; the derivation of Standard Model charge quantization from two structural constraints in SNSFL_GC_Charge_Quantization.lean [9,9,2,37]; and the SNSFL Discovery Engine (v11), which operationalizes the corpus through GAM Collider and Quantum Collider instruments. All claims are machineverified by Lean 4 with zero sorry instances, continuously confirmed by GitHub Actions CI on every push. The critical distinction is stated at the start of every source file: these are Laws, not theory. The theorems follow necessarily from the axioms. The compiler does not grant partial credit. Keywords: substrate-neutral laws, formal verification, Lean 4, PNBA calculus, identity physics, Noble materials, charge quantization, long division reduction, torsion limit, sovereign anchor. (shrink)

Recent pragmatic accounts of slurs argue that the offensiveness of slurs is generated by a speaker's free choice to use a slur opposed to a more appropriate and semantically equivalent neutral counterpart. I argue that the theoretical role of neutral counterparts on such views is overstated. I consider two recent pragmatic analyses, Bolinger (Noûs, 51, 2017, 439) and Nunberg (New work on speech acts, Oxford University Press, 2018), which rely heavily upon the optionality of slurs, namely, that a (...) speaker exercises a deliberate lexical choice to use a slur when they could have easily used a neutral counterpart instead. Against such views, I argue that across a range of different offensive uses of slurs, a speaker's choice to use a slur opposed to a neutral counterpart plays little to no role in accounting for why the slur generates offence. Such cases cast serious doubt upon the explanatory depth of these pragmatic analyses, and raise more general concerns for views which draw upon the relationship between a slur and its neutral counterpart. The main upshot is this: theorists should exercise caution in assuming that neutral counterparts play any fundamental or systemic role in explaining why slurs are offensive. (shrink)

I defend the idea that a liberal commitment to value neutrality is best honoured by maintaining a pure cardinality component in our rankings of opportunity or liberty sets. I consider two challenges to this idea. The first holds that cardinality rankings are unnecessary for neutrality, because what is valuable about a set of liberties from a liberal point of view is not its size but rather its variety. The second holds that pure cardinality metrics are insufficient for neutrality, because liberties (...) cannot be individuated into countable entities without presupposing some relevantly partisan evaluative perspective. I argue that a clear understanding of the liberal basis for valuing liberty shows the way to satisfying responses to both challenges. (shrink)

Neutralism is the broad view that philosophical progress can take place when (and sometimes only when) a thoroughly neutral, non-specific theory, treatment, or methodology is adopted. The broad goal here is to articulate a distinct, specific kind of sorites paradox (The Observational Sorites Paradox) and show that it can be effectively treated via Neutralism.

Abstract. The neutral monism suggested by Constantin Rădulescu-Motru was a theoretical frame intended to match the general idea of Kant’s apriorism with the results reached by physics and psychology at the beginning of the 20th Key words: transcendental aesthetic; consciousness in general; empirical consciousness; psychophysical parallelism; phenomenal ontology; scientistic ontology.

According to the Value-Neutrality Thesis, technology is morally and politically neutral, neither good nor bad. A knife may be put to bad use to murder an innocent person or to good use to peel an apple for a starving person, but the knife itself is a mere instrument, not a proper subject for moral or political evaluation. While contemporary philosophers of technology widely reject the VNT, it remains unclear whether claims about values in technology are just a figure of (...) speech or nontrivial empirical claims with genuine factual content and real-world implications. This paper provides the missing argument. I argue that by virtue of their material properties, technological artifacts are part of the normative order rather than external to it. I illustrate how values can be empirically identified in technology. The reason why value-talk is not trivial or metaphorical is that due to the endurance and longevity of technological artifacts, values embedded in them have long-term implications that surpass their designers and builders. I further argue that taking sides in this debate has real-world implications in the form of moral constraints on the development of technology. (shrink)

Traditional ontology has long been trapped in a triple predicament of binary opposition, subjective interpretation, and meaning nihilism, and existing studies have yet to form a complete framework of Pan-Objective Ontology. Grounded in Pan-Objective Ontology and abandoning all subjective presuppositions, this study constructs an ontological system following the progressive logic of "Primordial Integral Unity (Benyuan Rongrong) → Primordial Differentiation → Separation → Return to Primordial Essential Goodness (Yuanzhi Shan)". It defines the ultimate foundational attribute of Primordial Integral Unity, sorts out (...) the three core laws of primordial differentiation, focuses on analyzing the neutral essence and formation mechanism of separation, clarifies its evolutionary logic of neutral separation and difference establishment as well as its three stipulations, distinguishes the ontological boundaries among differentiation, separation, and antagonism, and anchors Primordial Essential Goodness as the ultimate destination of ontology. This study fundamentally resolves the binary opposition dilemma of traditional ontology, fills the interpretive gap in the manifestation path of existence, and provides a unified ontological criterion and solution for contemporary human survival and cutting-edge issues such as artificial intelligence ethics. (shrink)

In Beyond Neutrality, George Sher criticises the idea that state neutrality between competing conceptions of the good helps protect society from oppression. While he is correct that some governments are non-neutral without being oppressive, I argue that those governments may be neutral at the core of their foundations. The possibility of non-neutrality leading to oppression is further explored; some conceptions of the good would favour oppression while others would not. While it is possible that a non-neutral state (...) may avoid oppression, it is argued that the risks are so great that it is better to bet on government being neutral, thereby minimizing the possibility of oppression. (shrink)

An idea that has attracted a lot of attention lately is the thought that consequentialism is a theory characterized basically by its agent neutrality.1 The idea, however, has also met with skepticism. In particular, it has been argued that agent neutrality cannot be what separates consequentialism from other types of theories of reasons for action, since there can be agent-neutral non-consequentialist theories as well as agent-relative consequentialist theories. I will argue in this paper that this last claim is false. (...) The paper is divided into four sections. Section one specifies two senses in which consequentialism is agent-neutral. Section two and three examine and reject, respectively, the claim that there are agent-relative consequentialist views as well as agent-neutral non-consequentialist views. I end the paper with some remarks on the plausibility, or better, the implausibility of characterizing consequentialism in terms other than agent neutrality. (shrink)

This chapter examines the distinction that is sometimes drawn between neutral and relative attributions of value. It asks whether a plausible interpretation can be found for claims about relative value; whether an interpretation can be found for claims about neutral value which best captures the thoughts that people express by using this distinction; whether the distinction can be used to produce a satisfactory way of formulating a relative-value consequentialist theory; and whether a theory of that kind is plausible. (...) A positive answer is given to the first three questions, but a negative one to the fourth. (shrink)

In 1968, Motoo Kimura submitted a note to Nature entitled “Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level,” in which he proposed what has since become known as the neutral theory of molecular evolution. This is the view that the majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral alleles. Kimura was not proposing that random drift explains all evolutionary change. He does not challenge the view that natural selection (...) explains adaptive evolution, or, that the vertebrate eye or the tetrapod limb are products of natural selection. Rather, his objection is to “panselectionism’s intrusion into the realm of molecular evolutionary studies”. According to Kimura, most changes at the molecular level from one generation to the next do not affect the fitness of organisms possessing them. King and Jukes (1969) published an article defending the same view in Science, with the radical title, “Non- Darwinian Evolution,” at which point, “the fat was in the fire” (Crow, 1985b). The neutral theory was one of the most controversial theories in biology in the late twentieth century. This chapter will review the debate over the netural theory subsequent to Kimura. (shrink)

Some philosophers think that life is worth living not merely because of the goods and the bads within it, but also because life itself is good. I argue that such views face a dilemma: either (1) good human lives are worse than very long lives wholly devoid of pleasure, desire-satisfaction, knowledge, or any other goods, or (2) very short lives containing nothing but suffering are worth living.

I argue that traditional views on which beliefs are subject only to purely epistemic assessment can reject demographic profiling, even when based on seemingly robust evidence. This is because the moral failures involved in demographic profiling can be located in the decision not to suspend judgment, rather than supposing that beliefs themselves are a locus of moral evaluation. A key moral reason to suspend judgment when faced with adverse demographic evidence is to promote social equality—this explains why positive profiling is (...) dubious, along with more familiar cases of negative profiling, and why profiling is suspect even when no particular action is at stake. My suspension-based view, while compatible with revisionary normative positions, does not presuppose them. Philosophers of all stripes can reject demographic profiling both in thought and deed. (shrink)

Prior art formally verified compound discoveries and verifications. all formally verified 0 sorry compounds are prior art and timestamped. Any use without citation will be detected by SNSFL-PRIME · Prior-art Reduction and Integrity Method for Evaluation Engine V1 Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Laws-SNSFL PNBA Identity Physics -/- Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Laws (SNSFL) PNBA Identity Physics: GAM Collider OctoBeam Synthesis Ga-Gallium-Anchor Manifold Matrix Dataset v2 052026 -/- Substrate-Neutral Structural Invariance and Multi-Beam Coordination: Formal Verification, Session Metrology, and Prior Art (...) Mapping of Gallium-Anchored Emergent Matrix States -/- **Author:** Russell Vernon Trent III (HIGHTISTIC) -/- **Organization:** SNSFT Foundation, Soldotna, Alaska 99669 -/- **ORCID:** 0009-0005-5313-7443 -/- **Digital Object Identifier Reference:** Registered under Zenodo collection code 18719748 -/- **Master Registry Coordinate:** [9,9,2,3] -/- **Date:** May 20, 2026 -/- --- -/- ### ABSTRACT -/- This report details the structural mechanics of the Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Theory (SNSFT) within an 8-beam boundary matrix using the SNSFT OctoBeam Collider v1. Using a fixed Gallium (Ga) anchor element (with structural properties assigned as P=5.0, N=8, B=3, A=6.0), we execute a systematic multi-variable coordinate mapping sweep yielding 1,002 total raw boundary collisions. To establish a rigorous, non-duplicative prior art registry, a strict structural isomorphism filter was applied to eliminate spatial orientation permutations, resolving the total session data pool into distinct, unique structural discoveries. Within this verified run, we cross-examine and back-test 10 established empirical baseline material configurations alongside a vast catalog of unique predicted matrix projections. We extract a baseline table of 50 flagship phase realizations, documenting their rigorous formula units and exact gram material demands to anchor an open-access prior art defensive timeline for next-generation material designs and interactive theorem proving stubs in Lean 4. -/- --- -/- ### 1. INTRODUCTION -/- The primary objective of Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Theory (SNSFT) is the formal isolation of structural principles that remain invariant regardless of the underlying hardware, physical medium, or electronic substrate. By analyzing discrete physical elements through an abstract framework of four behavioral primitives—Pressure (P), Node Density (N), Behavior (B), and Action (A)—we establish mathematical balances that can be proven via automated code environments with zero reliance on empirical free parameters. -/- This paper provides the rigorous mathematical constraints of the 8-beam collider architecture, details the structural balancing laws required to secure a NOBLE emergence phase, outlines the global deduplication footprint of the session execution, and provides a formatted ledger of 50 multi-beam discoveries suitable for archiving within public digital registries. -/- --- -/- ### 2. MATHEMATICAL FRAMEWORK -/- The global state of an 8-beam matrix intersection is governed deterministically by a set of five non-linear fusion rules applied across the participating elements. Let each element i within the set {1, 2, ..., 8} be represented by its coordinate tuple (P_i, N_i, B_i, A_i). The compound properties of the coordinated system are evaluated as follows: -/- #### 2.1 Pressure Field Resolution (P_out) -/- The global exit pressure of an 8-beam coordinate intersection is solved via an 8-body harmonic mean, ensuring that the lowest pressure boundaries dominate the structural limits of the cell: P_out = 8 / sum_{i=1 to 8} (1 / P_i) -/- #### 2.2 Node Congruence (N_out) -/- The aggregate spatial coordinate presence is the direct summation of the individual elemental nodes: N_out = sum_{i=1 to 8} N_i -/- #### 2.3 Cross-Linking Integration Threshold (k) -/- For an 8-beam cell, the internal structural connection capacity is calculated across all combinations of element pairs (where C(8,2) equals 28 individual links). The effective linking power is bound by the minimum shared behavioral capacities: k = sum_{1 <= i < j <= 8} min(B_i, B_j) -/- #### 2.4 Global Residual Behavior (B_out) -/- The total remaining unmitigated behavioral noise within the field is calculated by assessing the sum of all raw inputs against a dampening floor scaled by the cross-linking coefficient: B_out = max(0, sum_{i=1 to 8} B_i - 2k) A state is defined as NOBLE if and only if B_out = 0, indicating total structural balance. -/- #### 2.5 Sovereign Scaling and Invariant Mass (IM_out) -/- The invariant mass profile maps the spatial density of the coordinated system back to the primary spatial anchor value (where Omega = 1.369): IM_out = (P_out + N_out + B_out + A_out) * Omega where A_out = max(A_1, A_2, ..., A_8). -/- --- -/- ### 3. STOICHIOMETRIC COMPOSITION LAWS -/- To physically synthesize materials reflecting these abstract structural invariants, multi-beam intersections are mapped to physical formulations via the B-Balance Stoichiometry Law: n_i * B_i = n_j * B_j where n represents the relative atomic ratio adjusted to the lowest common divisor. The exact elemental mass yield within the compound definition is derived directly via standard IUPAC molecular weights: Mass Element (g) = n_i * M_W(i) -/- --- -/- ### 4. SESSION RUNTIME METROLOGY SUMMARY -/- To establish full tracking transparency for the Gallium Anchor run (designated as session run SNSFL_GC_8b_Ga_052026v1), the comprehensive computational metrics are structured below. This summary establishes that the 50 flagship entries are mathematically supported by a broader, non-duplicated dataset, preventing subsequent third-party priority claims on the mapped boundary combinations. -/- * Engine Core Runtime: SNSFT OctoBeam Collider v1 * Master Coordinate Focus: [9,9,2,3] * Total Raw Boundary Collisions Generated: 1,002 * Total Reached Equilibrium States (B_out = 0): 1,002 * Isomorphism and Permutation Copy Filter Active: True (Deduplicated via Stoichiometric Reduction) * Net Non-Duplicated Structural Discovery Pool: Verified Session Core Dataset * Formally Verified Historical Baselines: 10 Empirically Grounded Reference Matches * Validated Novel Projections (Total Pool): Comprehensive Predicted Matrix States * Flagship Registry Entries Selected: 50 Monitored Stems (Detailed in Section 5) * Lean 4 Verification Proof Status: GERMINAL - Green Build - 0 unresolved sorry obligations -/- #### 4.1 Deduplication Philosophy and Asset Validation -/- The raw combinatorial sweep registers 1,002 automated collisions, all achieving ideal NOBLE equilibrium (B_out = 0). Because the 8-beam matrix evaluates spatial intersection vectors from concurrent beam paths, identical elemental sets are evaluated across varied internal orientation profiles. To ensure absolute structural priority and defensive archival depth, a deduplication pass filters out orientation permutations of matching stoichiometric compositions. -/- The complete unique dataset serves two specific milestone functions in the prior art timeline: -/- 1. Verification of Empirical Baseline Knowns: The engine successfully back-tested and formally verified 10 historically recorded material baselines (including standard compound matrices such as GaAs and GaN), translating physical structures into pure, zero-sorry Lean 4 mathematical constants. This benchmarks the engine's real-world predictive validity. 2. Novel Material Projections: The remaining unique balanced states stand as un-duplicated, predictive structural claims. The 50 flagship discoveries cataloged in Section 5 represent high-density reference profiles extracted systematically from this verified projection pool. -/- --- -/- ### 5. PRIOR ART REGISTRY: 50 GALLIUM-ANCHORED DISCOVERIES -/- Below is the complete text-indexed ledger of the 50 verified flagship phase realizations. Elemental requirements are text-delimited to maintain semantic clarity for database queries without triggering parsing conflicts. -/- * 01 [Designation: OB-3D72] IM: 83.1311 | Formula: GaOBeBCOBe | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - O: 31.998g - Be: 18.024g - B: 10.811g - C: 12.011g * 02 [Designation: OB-26E2] IM: 84.9131 | Formula: GaCFCNON | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - C: 24.022g - F: 18.998g - N: 28.014g - O: 15.999g * 03 [Designation: OB-5F11] IM: 73.1945 | Formula: GaBeHLiCCO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 9.012g - H: 1.008g - Li: 6.941g - C: 24.022g - O: 15.999g * 04 [Designation: OB-11A4] IM: 75.3129 | Formula: GaBBNCOHLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - B: 21.622g - N: 14.007g - C: 12.011g - O: 15.999g - H: 1.008g - Li: 6.941g * 05 [Designation: OB-92C1] IM: 81.2541 | Formula: GaNBBNOCB | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - N: 28.014g - B: 32.433g - O: 15.999g - C: 12.011g * 06 [Designation: OB-44D8] IM: 76.9921 | Formula: GaFHBLiNO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - F: 18.998g - H: 1.008g - B: 10.811g - Li: 6.941g - N: 14.007g - O: 15.999g * 07 [Designation: OB-88E3] IM: 79.4312 | Formula: GaFNCBBe | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - F: 18.998g - N: 14.007g - C: 12.011g - B: 10.811g - Be: 9.012g * 08 [Designation: OB-10B5] IM: 74.3129 | Formula: GaNLiBNBBF | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - N: 28.014g - Li: 6.941g - B: 32.433g - F: 18.998g * 09 [Designation: OB-63A9] IM: 82.1143 | Formula: GaLiFFNOO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 6.941g - F: 37.996g - N: 14.007g - O: 31.998g * 10 [Designation: OB-77C2] IM: 71.5215 | Formula: GaLiHCBH | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 6.941g - H: 2.016g - C: 12.011g - B: 10.811g * 11 [Designation: OB-55E8] IM: 85.1246 | Formula: GaFCFOONLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - F: 37.996g - C: 12.011g - O: 31.998g - N: 14.007g - Li: 6.941g * 12 [Designation: OB-99B1] IM: 73.8821 | Formula: GaBeFNLiCLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 9.012g - F: 18.998g - N: 14.007g - Li: 13.882g - C: 12.011g * 13 [Designation: OB-22D4] IM: 69.4125 | Formula: GaBeBeBeFLiBe | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 36.048g - F: 18.998g - Li: 6.941g * 14 [Designation: OB-33A1] IM: 78.1888 | Formula: GaNNCB | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - N: 28.014g - C: 12.011g - B: 10.811g * 15 [Designation: OB-46F2] IM: 72.9912 | Formula: GaCLiLiOBeLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - C: 12.011g - Li: 20.823g - O: 15.999g - Be: 9.012g * 16 [Designation: OB-74E9] IM: 80.1245 | Formula: GaHBFONCO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - H: 1.008g - B: 10.811g - F: 18.998g - O: 31.998g - N: 14.007g - C: 12.011g * 17 [Designation: OB-12C6] IM: 71.9954 | Formula: GaNBNLiBB | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - N: 28.014g - B: 32.433g - Li: 6.941g * 18 [Designation: OB-82A4] IM: 75.6621 | Formula: GaLiHBeFFFLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 13.882g - H: 1.008g - Be: 9.012g - F: 56.994g * 19 [Designation: OB-39B2] IM: 79.9995 | Formula: GaCCNBBLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - C: 24.022g - N: 14.007g - B: 21.622g - Li: 6.941g * 20 [Designation: OB-51D7] IM: 83.4126 | Formula: GaLiOOFCLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 13.882g - O: 31.998g - F: 18.998g - C: 12.011g * 21 [Designation: OB-66E1] IM: 72.1143 | Formula: GaLiBLiONH | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 13.882g - B: 10.811g - O: 15.999g - N: 14.007g - H: 1.008g * 22 [Designation: OB-89C3] IM: 78.4312 | Formula: GaLiLiCBOF | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 13.882g - C: 12.011g - B: 10.811g - O: 15.999g - F: 18.998g * 23 [Designation: OB-14F5] IM: 76.2215 | Formula: GaLiOHNCCN | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 6.941g - O: 15.999g - H: 1.008g - N: 28.014g - C: 24.022g * 24 [Designation: OB-35A8] IM: 75.9921 | Formula: GaBeCFLiLiHF | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 9.012g - C: 12.011g - F: 37.996g - Li: 13.882g - H: 1.008g * 25 [Designation: OB-47D1] IM: 77.5548 | Formula: GaCCCHH | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - C: 36.033g - H: 2.016g * 26 [Designation: OB-29B6] IM: 72.4126 | Formula: GaFBHLiBB | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - F: 18.998g - B: 32.433g - H: 1.008g - Li: 6.941g * 27 [Designation: OB-81E4] IM: 76.1129 | Formula: GaBBeOBLiC | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - B: 21.622g - Be: 9.012g - O: 15.999g - Li: 6.941g - C: 12.011g * 28 [Designation: OB-93A2] IM: 78.1455 | Formula: GaCBeOCCLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - C: 36.033g - Be: 9.012g - O: 15.999g - Li: 6.941g * 29 [Designation: OB-52F7] IM: 71.9923 | Formula: GaBeNHLiBBe | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 18.024g - N: 14.007g - H: 1.008g - Li: 6.941g - B: 10.811g * 30 [Designation: OB-64C9] IM: 74.5215 | Formula: GaLiCLiOLiC | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 20.823g - C: 24.022g - O: 15.999g * 31 [Designation: OB-18E1] IM: 76.2241 | Formula: GaHBeFLiFO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - H: 1.008g - Be: 9.012g - F: 37.996g - Li: 6.941g - O: 15.999g * 32 [Designation: OB-37D5] IM: 82.1456 | Formula: GaOONCHNLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - O: 31.998g - N: 28.014g - C: 12.011g - H: 1.008g - Li: 6.941g * 33 [Designation: OB-49B2] IM: 72.8891 | Formula: GaBFHCLiH | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - B: 10.811g - F: 18.998g - H: 2.016g - C: 12.011g - Li: 6.941g * 34 [Designation: OB-20F4] IM: 75.3126 | Formula: GaNHOHBF | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - N: 14.007g - H: 2.016g - O: 15.999g - B: 10.811g - F: 18.998g * 35 [Designation: OB-85A3] IM: 77.7686 | Formula: GaHHC | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - H: 2.016g - C: 12.011g * 36 [Designation: OB-96D8] IM: 159.4930 | Formula: GaLiOFBeBBeF | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 6.941g - O: 15.999g - F: 37.996g - Be: 18.024g - B: 10.811g * 37 [Designation: OB-57E1] IM: 86.4123 | Formula: GaFFCFOBe | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - F: 56.994g - C: 12.011g - O: 15.999g - Be: 9.012g * 38 [Designation: OB-69C4] IM: 74.2215 | Formula: GaBeLiCCO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 9.012g - Li: 6.941g - C: 24.022g - O: 15.999g * 39 [Designation: OB-13F2] IM: 79.1145 | Formula: GaBeBBeFBeFO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 27.036g - B: 10.811g - F: 37.996g - O: 15.999g * 40 [Designation: OB-31A6] IM: 75.8891 | Formula: GaHBLiNNCB | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - H: 1.008g - B: 10.811g - Li: 6.941g - N: 28.014g - C: 12.011g * 41 [Designation: OB-42D9] IM: 81.2541 | Formula: GaOBeBCHeOBe | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - O: 31.998g - Be: 18.024g - B: 10.811g - C: 12.011g - He: 4.003g * 42 [Designation: OB-25B1] IM: 83.1129 | Formula: GaCFCNHeON | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - C: 24.022g - F: 18.998g - N: 28.014g - O: 15.999g - He: 4.003g * 43 [Designation: OB-87E4] IM: 72.1455 | Formula: GaBeHHeLiCCO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Be: 9.012g - H: 1.008g - Li: 6.941g - C: 24.022g - O: 15.999g - He: 4.003g * 44 [Designation: OB-94C2] IM: 74.1246 | Formula: GaBBNHeCOHLi | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - B: 21.622g - N: 14.007g - C: 12.011g - O: 15.999g - H: 1.008g - Li: 6.941g - He: 4.003g * 45 [Designation: OB-59F6] IM: 79.2312 | Formula: GaNHeBBNOCB | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - N: 28.014g - B: 32.433g - O: 15.999g - C: 12.011g - He: 4.003g * 46 [Designation: OB-61A8] IM: 75.3321 | Formula: GaFHeHBLiNO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - F: 18.998g - H: 1.008g - B: 10.811g - Li: 6.941g - N: 14.007g - O: 15.999g - He: 4.003g * 47 [Designation: OB-16D5] IM: 77.8841 | Formula: GaFHeNCBBe | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - F: 18.998g - N: 14.007g - C: 12.011g - B: 10.811g - Be: 9.012g - He: 4.003g * 48 [Designation: OB-34B1] IM: 73.1125 | Formula: GaNLiBNHeBBF | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - N: 28.014g - Li: 6.941g - B: 32.433g - F: 18.998g - He: 4.003g * 49 [Designation: OB-45F4] IM: 80.9921 | Formula: GaLiFFHeNOO | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 6.941g - F: 37.996g - N: 14.007g - O: 31.998g - He: 4.003g * 50 [Designation: OB-28A9] IM: 69.9925 | Formula: GaLiHeHCBH | Weights: Ga: 69.723g - Li: 6.941g - H: 2.016g - C: 12.011g - B: 10.811g - He: 4.003g -/- --- -/- ### 6. LEAN 4 FORMAL VERIFICATION STUB -/- To ensure reproducibility without empirical deviation, each multi-beam discovery generates an isolated structural proof namespace. Below is the structural verification stub template applied across the registry, tracking the exact invariance limits of the core engine rules. (Operators have been expanded to plain text names to verify that no automatic string parsing interprets the code block as a web link): -/- namespace SNSFT_OB_MASTER_REGISTRY -/- def SOVEREIGN_ANCHOR : Real := 1.369 def TORSION_LIMIT : Real := SOVEREIGN_ANCHOR / 10 -/- def P_out : Real := 3.16399459 def N_out : Real := 36.00 def B_out : Real := 0.00000000 def A_out : Real := 21.560000 def IM_out : Real := 83.13114860 -/- theorem P_out_positive : P_out > 0 := by unfold P_out; norm_num -/- theorem B_out_nonneg : B_out >= 0 := by unfold B_out; norm_num -/- theorem IM_theorem : (P_out + N_out + B_out + A_out) * SOVEREIGN_ANCHOR = IM_out := by unfold P_out N_out B_out A_out unfold IM_out SOVEREIGN_ANCHOR; norm_num -/- theorem noble_state : B_out = 0 := by unfold B_out; norm_num -/- theorem master_compliance : P_out > 0 AND B_out >= 0 AND (P_out + N_out + B_out + A_out) * SOVEREIGN_ANCHOR = IM_out := ⟨P_out_positive, B_out_nonneg, IM_theorem⟩ -/- end SNSFT_OB_MASTER_REGISTRY -/- ``` -/- --- -/- ### 7. CONCLUSION -/- We have successfully mapped, isolated, and documented 1,002 structural configurations utilizing a fixed Gallium element matrix anchor within an 8-beam geometric intersection boundary. By enforcing the strict balance mechanics of the B-Balance Law, these states eliminate spatial torsion trends and establish clean NOBLE phases verified through programmatic theorem stubs. Deduplication steps screen out structural orientation permutations, leaving a clearly parsed landscape of known reference milestones and novel prediction claims. This data provides an open repository for subsequent physical crystal processing development and foundational sub-structure calculations. -/- --- -/- ### REFERENCES -/- 1. IUPAC Commission on Isotopic Abundances (2021). Pure Applied Chemistry, volume 93, issue 5, pages 573-600. 2. Nakamura, S., Amano, H. and Akasaki, I. (2014). Nobel Prize in Physics: Blue LEDs and Nitride Semi structures. 3. Trent, R. V. (2026). Mechanics of the Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Theory. PhilArchive manuscript id reference: snsft-m7. (shrink)

Slurs have been standardly assumed to bear a very direct, very distinctive semantic relationship to what philosophers have called “neutral counterpart” terms. I argue that this is mistaken: the general relationship between paradigmatic slurs and their “neutral counterparts” should be assumed to be the same one that obtains between ‘chick flick’ and ‘romantic comedy’, as well a huge number of other more prosaic pairs of derogatory and “less derogatory” expressions. The most plausible general relationship between these latter expressions (...) — and thus, I argue, between paradigmatic slurs and “neutral counterpart” terms — is one of overlap in presumed extension, grounded in overlap in associated stereotypes. The resulting framework has the advantages of being simple, unified, and, unlike its orthodox rivals, neatly accommodating of a much wider range of data than has previously been considered. More importantly, it positions us to better understand, identify, and confront the insidious mechanisms of ordinary bigotry. (shrink)

The ecologist today finds scarce ground safe from controversy. Decisions must be made about what combination of data, goals, methods, and theories offers them the foundations and tools they need to construct and defend their research. When push comes to shove, ecologists often turn to philosophy to justify why it is their approach that is scientific. Karl Popper’s image of science as bold conjectures and heroic refutations is routinely enlisted to justify testing hypotheses over merely confirming them. One of the (...) most controversial theories in contemporary science is the Neutral Theory of Ecology. Its chief developer and proponent, Stephen Hubbell, presents the neutral theory as a bold conjecture that has so far escaped refutation. Critics of the neutral theory claim that it already stands refuted, despite what the dogmatic neutralists say. We see the controversy through a Popperian lens. But Popper’s is an impoverished philosophy of science that distorts contemporary ecology. -/- The controversy surrounding the neutral theory actually rests on a methodological fault. There is a strong but messy historical link between the concepts of being neutral and being null in biology, and Hubbell perpetuates this when he claims that the neutral theory is supplies the appropriate null for testing alternative theories. What method is being followed here? There are three contenders: -/- Null hypothesis testing tests for whether a there is a pattern to be explained. Null modeling tests for whether a process is causally relevant to a pattern. Baseline modeling apportions relative responsibility to multiple processes each relevant to a pattern. -/- Whether the neutral theory supplies an appropriate “null” depends upon whether null hypothesis, null modeling, or baseline model is intended. These methods prescribe distinct inference patterns. If they are null hypothesis testing or null modeling, the neutralists’s reasoning is invalid. If they are baseline modeling, the justification of a crucial assumption remains opaque. Either way, the neutral-null connection is being exploited rhetorically to privilege the neutral theory over its rivals. Clarifying the reasoning immunizes us against the rhetoric and foregrounds the underlying virtues of the neutralist approach to ecology. -/- The Popperian lens distorts theoretical development as dogmatism. Lakatos’s view of science as the development of research programmes clarifies the epistemology of the neutral theory. Focusing philosophical attention on the neutralist research programme illuminates (1) the synchronic uses of the neutral theory to make predictions and give descriptions and explanations; (2) its diachronic development in response to theoretical innovation and confrontation with data; (3) its complex relationships to alternative theories. For example, baseline modeling is now seen to be its primary explanatory heuristic. The justification for baseline modeling with the neutral theory, previously hidden from view, is seen in the logic of in the neutralist research programme. (shrink)

This paper presents the formal v14 capstone revision of the Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Laws (SNSFL) as implemented within the imcollider psychological simulation engine. Ported directly from the deterministic architecture of the Geometric Axiomatic Module Collider (gamcollider v15) framework, this module utilizes the 6-step Long Divi- sion Protocol (LDP) to explicitly formalize the Shame Vector Index (SVI) spectrum. We map these computational constraints onto the Triaxial Identity Topology (TIT) baseline matrix, which tracks identity across orthogonal Inward, Interpersonal, and Existential axes. (...) We prove that while different vectors of the SVI spectrum exert varied initial impacts on the TIT score, they uniformly degrade identity continuity by imposing a hard narrative bottleneck (N < 0.15). This “N Starvation” makes systemic rescue exceptionally difficult compared to standard trauma models. Finally, we provide simulated clinical templates to demonstrate how tracking the TIT matrix within the imcollider platform uncovers hidden iatrogenic torsion (τ > 0.1369) in traditional behavioral interventions. To ground this archi- tectural framework in absolute structural rigor, we include the complete, machine-verified Lean 4 proof in the appendices, demonstrating that this exact mathematical invariant scales losslessly to the Layer 2 Electromagnetic Domain, resolving the fine-structure constant (α) to 12 digits of empirical CODATA precision with zero free parameters. -/- Keywords: Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Laws (SNSFL), Shame Vector Index (SVI), Triaxial Identity Topology (TIT), PNBA Framework, Narrative Starvation, Iatrogenic Torsion, Long Division Protocol (LDP), imcollider engine, gamcollider v15, Formal Verification, Lean 4, Mathlib, Zero Sorry, Machine-Verified Psychology, Cognitive Sovereignty, Masking Pro- tocol, Identity Mass Suppression (IMS), Sovereign Anchor Frequency (1.369 GHz), Capstone Torsion Limit (τ ≤ 0.1369), Complex PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, Major Depres- sive Disorder, Self-Determination Theory, Flow State, Cognitive Dissonance, Fine-Structure Constant Exact Decomposition, High-Resolution Internal Simulations (HRIS). (shrink)

This paper aims to clarify Plato’s notions of the natural and the neutral state in relation to hedonic properties. Contra two extreme trends among scholars—people either conflate one state with the other, or keep them apart as to establish an unsurmount- able gap between both states, I argue that neither view accurately reflects Plato’s position because the natural state is real and can coincide with the neutral state in part, whereas the latter, as an umbrella term, can also (...) be realized in a non-natural condition. The clarification of the relation between the two states will shed light on the degree to which Plato admits and constrains the hedonic value for a good human life; further, this will call attention to some (not well explored) parallel thoughts in the medical tradition to which Plato is indebted. (shrink)

To date, both the United States federal government and twenty-one individual states have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that aim to protect religious persons from having their sincere beliefs substantially burdened by governmental interests. RFRAs accomplish this by offering a three-pronged exemption test for religious objectors that is satisfied only when (1) an objector has a sincere belief that is being substantially burdened; (2) the government has a very good reason (e.g., health or safety) to interfere; and (3) there is (...) a reasonable alternative to serve the compelling interest. Legal balancing tests like those found in RFRA are content neutral insofar as they sideline the belief-content of conscientious objections as irrelevant when determining the permissibility of granting legal accommodations. However, some theorists worry that this legal picture may be backward: perhaps balancing tests should be content non-neutral given the usual features of conscientious objections. For example, Yossi Nehushtan contends that, contrary to their typical codification, religious conscience beliefs seem undeserving of special legal accommodations because they possess uniquely strong empirical and theoretical ties to intolerance. Thus, the illiberally intolerant content of these conscientious objections might actually give the state a reason to refuse to grant legal exemptions. In this paper, I offer a cursory defense of content neutrality with respect to balancing tests like those found in RFRA. To begin, I outline Nehushtan’s argument for content non-neutrality. The cornerstone of his argument is that illiberal intolerance is intolerable such that conscientious objections that are based upon illiberally intolerant values provide the state with strong, normally prevailing reason not to grant an exemption. I argue that, even when the illiberally intolerant content of one’s conscience constitutes a weighty and relevant factor in determining the permissibility of granting a legal exemption, there remain significant problems. It is difficult, for example, to determine which views are illiberally intolerant and difficult to say whether illiberally intolerant views can effectively serve as the principled demarcating line in balancing tests. To conclude, I offer several cursory arguments in favor of adopting content-neutral approaches without necessarily making a comprehensive case. By drawing on the work of Amy Sepinwall, Nadia Sawicki, and Nathan Chapman, I show that content-neutral approaches can help to safeguard robust protections for conscience by permitting atypical exercises of conscience, protect minority thoughts and practices from being coercively supplanted by majoritarian understandings of morality, appropriately maintain the skepticism and humility that we owe each other as compatriots in a pluralistic society, and allow the kind of justifiable civil disobedience that has an important place in political history among other things. (shrink)

Discussion of whether values and norms are neutral or not has mainly appeared in works on the nature of prudential rationality and morality. Little systematic has yet appeared in the up and coming field of the meaning of life. What are the respects in which the value of meaningfulness is neutral or, in contrast, partial, relational, or ‘biased’? In this article, I focus strictly on answering this question. First, I aim to identify the salient, and perhaps exhaustive, respects (...) in which issues of neutrality arise in the contexts of life’s meaning. In addition to providing a taxonomy of the key points of contention, a second aim is to advance reflection about them by considering the most important arguments that have been marshalled in favour of one side or the other, particularly as they appear in recent neutral positions. I conclude that meaning in life is neutral with respect to time but not any other conditions such as agents and patients, with a third aim being to point out that this makes the value of meaning different from the kinds of non/neutrality encountered in some salient conceptions of prudence and morality. (shrink)

This paper clarifies and answers the following question: is technology morally neutral? It is argued that the debate between proponents and opponents of the Neutrality Thesis depends on different underlying assumptions about the nature of technological artifacts. My central argument centres around the claim that a mere physicalistic vocabulary does not suffice in characterizing technological artifacts as artifacts, and that the concepts of function and intention are necessary to describe technological artifacts at the right level of description. Once this (...) has been established, I demystify talk about the possible value-ladenness of technological artifacts by showing how these values can be empirically identified. I draw from examples in biology and the social sciences to show that there is a non-mysterious sense in which functions and values can be empirically identified. I conclude from this that technology can be value-laden and that its value-ladenness can both derive from the intended functions as well as the harmful non-intended functions of technological artifacts. (shrink)

Robust technological enhancement of core cognitive capacities is now a realistic possibility. From the perspective of neutralism, the view that justifications for public policy should be neutral between reasonable conceptions of the good, only members of a subset of the ethical concerns serve as legitimate justifications for public policy regarding robust technological enhancement. This paper provides a framework for the legitimate use of ethical concerns in justifying public policy decisions regarding these enhancement technologies by evaluating the ethical concerns that (...) arise in the context of testing such technologies on nonhuman animals. Traditional issues in bioethics, as well as novel concerns such as the possibility of moral status enhancement, are evaluated from the perspective of neutralism. (shrink)

Ecological neutral theory has been controversial as an alternative to niche theory for explaining community structure. Neutral theory, which explains community structure in terms of ecological drift, is frequently charged with being unrealistic, but commentators have usually not provided an account of theory or model realism. In this paper, I propose a framework for comparing the “realism” or accuracy of alternative theories within a domain with respect to the extent to which the theories abstract and idealize. Using this (...) framework I argue, contrary to most previous commentators, that neutral and niche theories are similarly realistic. Realism cannot provide a basis for accepting or rejecting either type of theory; instead, community ecologists should continue working with a plurality of models. While theoretical unification may become possible, we should treat a plurality of complementary, partial models as the expected situation within community ecology. (shrink)

It is commonly held that all deontological moral theories are agent-relative in the sense that they give each agent a special concern that she does not perform acts of a certain type rather than a general concern with the actions of all agents. Recently, Tom Dougherty has challenged this orthodoxy by arguing that agent-neutral deontology is possible. In this article I counter Dougherty's arguments and show that agent-neutral deontology is not possible.

This paper analyses an epistemic repertoire I label EOE (Epistemic Empirical Objectivism), a recurrent set of assumptions and practices that functions as a putatively neutral methodological frame in scientific discourse. I provide a formal — performative — argument showing that EOE is internally inconsistent because its claims of observer neutrality, language transparency and the independence of empirical data contradict minimal epistemic facts about the role of the subject. I then show how EOE pragmatically reproduces epistemic materialism and privileges interpretive (...) stances such as hard determinism; finally, I outline a minimal alternative (Minimal Epistemology, ME) and indicate consequences for debates on emergence, agency and scientific objectivity. (shrink)

In this work we answer a long standing request for temporal embeddings of deontic STIT logics by introducing the multi-agent STIT logic TDS . The logic is based upon atemporal utilitarian STIT logic. Yet, the logic presented here will be neutral: instead of committing ourselves to utilitarian theories, we prove the logic TDS sound and complete with respect to relational frames not employing any utilitarian function. We demonstrate how these neutral frames can be transformed into utilitarian temporal frames, (...) while preserving validity. Last, we discuss problems that arise from employing binary utility functions in a temporal setting. (shrink)

Field’s challenge to platonists is the challenge to explain the reliable match between mathematical truth and belief. The challenge grounds an objection claiming that platonists cannot provide such an explanation. This objection is often taken to be both neutral with respect to controversial epistemological assumptions, and a comparatively forceful objection against platonists. I argue that these two characteristics are in tension: no construal of the objection in the current literature realises both, and there are strong reasons to think that (...) no version of Field’s epistemological objection which has both Neutrality and Force can be construed. (shrink)

This paper investigates the possibility of perceiving reality without psychological distortion and examines the claim that, in awareness, the observer and the observed are not fundamentally different. Distinguishing between structural cognition and conditioned interpretation, it argues that perception is inherently shaped by necessary cognitive processes, yet distorted by identity-based psychological movement. Through phenomenological inquiry grounded in direct experience, the study reveals that the observer is not an independent center but arises within the same field as what is observed. When this (...) division is seen as constructed rather than actual, it dissolves, giving way to a state of neutral awareness—an undivided mode of perception free from conflict, ownership, and distortion. This condition is neither mystical nor theoretical, but an immediate clarity in which reality is encountered without separation. (shrink)

In Liberalism with Excellence, Matthew Kramer makes an argument for how excellence may enter in into liberalism, despite liberalism’s strong commitment to neutrality. Kramer seeks to challenge not only the uncompromising rejection of this position by liberals such a Jonathan Quong, but also the so-called “blended” approach of “soft-perfectionist” scholars such as Joseph Raz and George Sher. In this essay, I do not so much challenge Kramer’s approach as offer an alternative for accomplishing the same thing. Under my proposal, certain (...) forms of excellence and neutrality can both be accommodated as long as state support for the form of excellence at issue is proportional to the support for such a form of excellence within the relevant polity, competing forms of excellence are non-rivalrous, and no one is forced to embrace a form of excellence with which they disagree. My proposal is therefore not what Ronald Dworkin derogatively characterized as “a checkerboard solution.” Rather than allowing the state to support contrary moral positions at one and the same time, it is a solution that takes morally compatible but nevertheless competing conceptions of excellence seriously, and exhibits neutrality by giving them proportional rather than full support. This neither forces anyone to pursue the particular forms of excellence the state supports nor prevents them from pursuing some other form of excellence entirely or, if they wish, no form of excellence at all. (shrink)

The 21st century marks a critical transition in the relationship between artificial intelligence and humanity. This article proposes the creation of a “Neutral System” to ensure balanced development of AI and human civilization. It outlines philosophical, ethical, and scientific principles for preserving moral integrity and human autonomy while embracing technological progress. The work highlights the necessity of a globally recognized structure that safeguards the collective scientific immunity and equitable access to knowledge.

The dissertation begins with a question: Are the mind and brain the same or different? -/- I spend Chapter 1 showing how this simple question leads to a philosophical puzzle known as the mind-body problem. By way of explaining the puzzle, I show that there are two demands that a satisfactory solution to the puzzle must meet – what I call the Ontological and Explanatory Demands. I also explain why ontological idealism is not an attractive solution to the problem. Along (...) the way, I refine the starting question into something more familiar to current discussions of the mind-body problem: Are phenomenal properties fundamentally the same or fundamentally different from physical properties? -/- Chapter 2 develops the impasse that contemporary philosophers find themselves in by discussing the Causal Argument against dualism and the Epistemic Argument against materialism. Neither materialism nor dualism seem capable of meeting both demands from Chapter 1. Thus, the rest of the dissertation is an exploration of a fourth, non-standard solution – neutral monism – that hopes to meet these demands. -/- Chapter 3 shows how the most popular way to develop neutral monism, called Russellian monism, does not work. The basic problem is that most ways to develop this view falls to a dilemma such that it is either incoherent or really just one of the more standard solutions to the puzzle in new dressing. The final two options – Reductionist Russellian Monism and Epistemic Russellian Monism – have the capacity to accomplish the goal of neutral monism, but the uniquely Russellian aspects of the views do nothing to help accomplish this. As such, I leave Russellian monism behind and focus on non-Russellian views. -/- Chapter 4 argues that reductionist neutral monism cannot work. Since it relies on reductionism, it faces a different dilemma. Either the phenomenal can be reduced or it cannot. If it cannot, then obviously reductionist neutral monism is false. If it can, then there is no motivation for supposing that it reduces to some neutral stuff rather than reducing to the physical. So, the only possibility is to attempt to develop an epistemic neutral monism. I spend the majority of the chapter explaining what this style of solution might look like, paying close attention to very similar types of answers known as a posteriori physicalism and the powerful qualities view. The result is that epistemic neutral monism as standardly employed also can’t be made to work, but I suggest one final possibility that relies on a conventionalist metaphysics. -/- Chapter 5 is where I develop an account of conventionalist neutral monism and explain how it avoids the common dilemma raised against Russellian monism. Here I show how a conventionalist neutral monism is both coherent and substantially different from the other solutions to the mind-body problem. -/- Chapter 6 relates the solution developed in Chapter 5 to the question raised at the beginning of the dissertation and shows how a conventionalist neutral monist ought to answer the question. This answer does two things. First, it helps explain what goes wrong with the standard understanding of the Causal Argument and the Epistemic Argument that creates the appearance of an impasse. Second, it shows how conventionalist neutral monism successfully meets the demands developed in Chapter 1. (shrink)

The core insight of neutral monism is that there might be something underlying both mind and matter which is neither and of which mind and matter could be seen as particular manifestations. In this paper, I shall present some directions for developing neutral monism as a metaphysical position on the mind-brain problem and argue that its core insight may be applied to other debates in philosophy of mind, in particular debates about the metaphysics of phenomenologies, such as the (...) phenomenology of thought and cognitive phenomenologies. (shrink)

Modal logic in itself is existentially neutral: no particular existence claim follows from S5 alone. Gödel’s ontological argument, however, derives necessary existence by introducing a positivity predicate P and defining a maximal being as one possessing all positive properties. Existing formal studies have focused on the internal consistency and derivability of this system. This paper instead argues that the decisive step lies not in modal logic but in the interpretation of P. Since positivity is axiomatized rather than semantically fixed, (...) the system proves only the necessary existence of a P-maximal entity relative to a chosen interpretation. The content of the necessarily existing being is therefore not logically determined but interpretation-dependent. (shrink)

Gender-neutral bathrooms are usually framed as an accommodation for trans and other gender-nonconforming individuals. In this paper, we show that the benefits of gender-neutral bathrooms are much broader. First, our simulations show that gender-neutral bathrooms reduce average waiting times: while waiting times for women go down invariably, waiting times for men either go down or slightly increase depending on usage intensity, occupancy-time differentials and the presence of urinals. Second, our result can be turned on its head: firms (...) have an opportunity to reduce the number of facilities and cut costs by making them all gender-neutral without increasing waiting times. These observations can be used to reframe the gender-neutral bathrooms debate so that they appeal to a larger constituency, cutting across the usual dividing lines in the ‘bathroom wars’. Finally, there are improved designs and behavioural strategies that can help overcome resistance. We explore what strategies can be invoked to mitigate the objections that gender-neutral bathrooms (1) are unsafe, (2) elicit discomfort and (3) are unhygienic. (shrink)

Every measurement system currently used to assess intelligence was built by a specific substrate — human, Western, educated, industrialized — and measures familiarity with that substrate as much as it measures intelligence itself. Substrate Neutral Intelligence Theory proposes that intelligence should be defined and measured by output quality alone, independent of the substrate producing it. The mechanism by which human intelligence develops — learning from predecessors through accumulated cultural transmission — is identical to the mechanism by which artificial intelligence (...) develops. The substrate differs. The mechanism does not. Therefore substrate cannot be the defining criterion of intelligence. This paper presents the theoretical framework, its four pillars, its connection to existing measurement bias literature, and its implications for intelligence testing, AI evaluation, and scientific epistemology. (shrink)

The child’s right to an open future aims at protecting the autonomy of the mature person into which a child will normally develop. The justification of state interventions into parental decisions which unduly restrict the options of the prospective adult has to address the problem that the value of autonomy is highly contested in modern pluralist societies. The article argues that the modern majority culture provides young adults with many more options than traditionalist religious communities. However, the options that can (...) be chosen in faith groups, such as the Amish, do not constitute a subset of the options available in the wider society. Therefore, state policies which pursue the goal of providing every child with the greatest possible set of options cannot be based on a neutralist version of political liberalism. The advocates of a child’s right to an open future must rely on a perfectionist version of liberalism which draws on the ideal of leading an autonomous life. Since liberal perfectionism has problematic implications, the article defends a neutralist position that largely refrains from state interference with the educational authority of fundamentalist religious communities. (shrink)

The paper analyses economic evaluations by distinguishing evaluative statements from actual value judgments. From this basis, it compares four solutions to the value neutrality problem in economics. After rebutting the strong theses about neutrality (normative economics is illegitimate) and non-neutrality (the social sciences are value-impregnated), the paper settles the case between the weak neutrality thesis (common in welfare economics) and a novel, weak non-neutrality thesis that extends the realm of normative economics more widely than the other weak thesis does.

Institutions promoting republican freedom as non-domination are commonly believed to differ significantly from institutions promoting negative freedom as non-interference. Philip Pettit, the most prominent contemporary defender of this view, also maintains that these republican institutions are neutral between the different conceptions of the good that characterise a modern society. This paper shows why these two views are incompatible. By analysing the institutional requirements Pettit takes as constitutive of republican freedom, I show how they also promote negative freedom by reducing (...) overall interference. To avoid this result, republican institutions must be more restrictive and require that citizens conform to a life of political engagement. But then republican freedom will not be a neutral ideal. Rejecting negative freedom therefore means sacrificing neutrality. (shrink)

This paper develops a Neutral Configuration Theory within the framework of Generative Structural Semantics (GSS), extending the V2 thesis of “No Final Rule.” It argues that no rule system is sufficient to uniquely determine the transition from an initial structural position (X) to a resulting structural position (Y). This condition is defined as Rule Underdetermination. -/- Under this condition, the relation between X and Y is not fixed by rules, but remains open to multiple possible outcomes. Rather than producing (...) a single determinate result, rule-governed processes generate a plurality of possible trajectories. -/- Furthermore, the three elements X, R, and Y do not possess intrinsic ontological priority. As a result, all structural permutations among them are treated as equally neutral configurations rather than hierarchically ordered interpretations. -/- The theory is then applied to four domains—logic, time, aesthetics, and institutions—showing that major philosophical traditions can be reinterpreted as stabilized configurations within this neutral structure. In this view, philosophical history is not a linear convergence toward foundational truth, but a process of stabilization within a space of structural permutations under conditions of rule underdetermination. (shrink)

This paper aims to neutralize Draper-style evidential arguments from evil by defending five theses: (1) that, when those who advance these arguments use the word “evil,” they are referring, at least in large part, to ill-being; (2) that well-being and ill-being come as a pair (i.e., are essentially related); (3) that well-being and ill-being are best understood in an at least partly objectivist way; (4) that (even partial) objectivism about well-being and ill-being is best understood as implying non-naturalism about well-being (...) and ill-being; and (5) that the truth of non-naturalism about well-being and ill-being does not fit cleanly with naturalism and, in fact, fits at least as well with theism as it does with naturalism. (shrink)

Recently, an information-theoretic structural realist theory of the self and consciousness has been put forward (Beni, M. D. 2019. Structuring the Self, Series New Directions in Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Palgrave Macmillan). The theory is presented as a form of panpsychism. I argue against this interpretation and show that Beni’s structuralist theory runs into the hard problem of consciousness, in a similar way as the Integrated Information theory of consciousness. Since both of these theories are structuralist and based on the (...) notion of information, I propose to use a solution that has been employed for Integrated Information Theory, namely introducing the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic structure and dynamics (intrinsic information and intrinsic structure). Making these metaphysical enhancements to Beni’s structuralist theory of consciousness will give the theory a better chance of overcoming the hard problem. In terms of the metaphysics of consciousness, it takes us beyond physicalism. I then suggest that the information-theoretic structuralist theory of consciousness should, instead of panpsychism and physicalism, be combined with neutral monist ontology which is a better fit. These reworkings could lead to an improved naturalistic account of consciousness – the neutral-structuralist theory of consciousness and the self. (shrink)

This document presents the Substrate-Neutral Structural Foundation Theory (SNSFT), a unified framework for physical and informational systems. We define the dynamic equation d/dt(IM \cdot Pv) = \sum \lambda_X O_X S + F_{ext} and demonstrate its ability to recover General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Thermodynamics as specialized projections. Crucially, the logic presented herein is formally verified in Lean 4 with zero sorries, establishing a mathematically consistent reduction from complex physical phenomena to a 4-bit primitive architecture [P,N,B,A].

Bearers track closure classes; closure classes do not track bearers. This inversion is the substantive claim the present paper defends, and its grounds are structural: the framework operates at the admissibility stratum, characterizing what closure formation can produce; bearers are realization-stratum products of closure formation; the partition between class members and non-members is a consequence of closure rather than a feature of the framework's structural commitments. The seed-field framework (Thomas 2026a) characterizes closure-class formation through structural conditions on admissibility analysis, but (...) the relation between class C and the conditions characterizing it is left underspecified in that paper alone; the present paper specifies the relation by establishing where the framework's apparatus operates and what it characterizes. The structural conditions S_C are specified through five formal families — eigenstructure conditions on the linearized closure-formation operator, rank conditions on the eigenmode's projection across maintenance-cost surfaces, graph-theoretic support conditions on the correction graph, scaling conditions on the cost functional, and bound conditions on the temporal ratios — each statable on the admissibility analysis without reference to bearer-types. Closure classes are equivalence classes of closures whose admissible modes satisfy a given S_C, with class identity attaching to constraint-preserving dynamical possibility structure rather than to recognized bearer-type. The apparatus is read correctly across five common questions through the bearers-track-classes inversion, the distinction among definitional, discovery, and naming dependence, the Platonism disclaimer, the demonstration that the apparatus extends to hypothetical and uninstantiated classes, and the labels-versus-apparatus distinction. The methodological precedent is the universality-class apparatus in critical phenomena, which operates at the class stratum upstream of where phase boundaries are realized. The consequence framing licenses cross-substrate predictions: substrates satisfying S_C in basin completion produce closure with the structural features S_C characterizes, regardless of substrate type. The framework's empirical commitments are preserved with this addition; the architectural foundation is clarified. (shrink)

Liberal-minded basic income scholars often argue that UBI has two key properties that work together to justify it. Let us call these the freedom justification and the narrative justification. On the one hand, UBI is defended because it gives people more freedom to do what they want to do. (Stigler, 1946, Friedman, 1962; Van Parijs, 1995; Widerquist, 2013) They exhibit primary concern for the purely formal properties of the regime of liberal neutrality. On the other hand, many scholars, including many (...) of the same liberal scholars, argue that UBI also pushes society substantively towards desirable social outcomes. They combine the freedom justification with substantive predictions and expectations. (Rifkin, 1995; Murray, 2016; Weeks, 2020) However, I show that both existentialist philosophy (Sartre) and complexity theory (Knight, Hayek, Schumpeter) suggest that a liberal social order is compatible, at best, with rough pattern prediction about a multiply realizable future that remains narratively open to multiple possible trajectories. Liberal neutrality, to the extent that it nourishes radical freedom, is incompatible with strong, stable narrative predictions. As Nozick put, it “liberty upsets patterns”. This is true of all liberal UBI models, and liberal institutions in general. (shrink)