This paper develops Richard Wollheim’s claim that the proper appreciation of a picture involves not only enjoying a seeing-in experience but also abiding by a standard of correctness. While scholars have so far focused on what fixes the standard, thereby discussing the alternative between intentions and causal mechanisms, the paper focuses on what the standard does, that is, establishing which kinds, individuals, features and standpoints are relevant to the understanding of pictures. It is argued that, while standards concerning kinds, (...) individuals and features can be relevant also to ordinary perception, standards concerning standpoints are specific to pictorial experience. Drawing on all this, the paper proposes an ontology of depiction according to which a picture is constituted by both its visual appearance and its standard of correctness. (shrink)

It has been argued that an epistemically rational agent’s evidence is subjectively mediated through some rational epistemic standards, and that there are incompatible but equally rational epistemic standards available to agents. This supports Permissiveness, the view according to which one or multiple fully rational agents are permitted to take distinct incompatible doxastic attitudes towards P (relative to a body of evidence). In this paper, I argue that the above claims entail the existence of a unique and more reliable (...) epistemic standard. My strategy relies on Condorcet’s Jury Theorem. This gives rise to an important problem for those who argue that epistemic standards are permissive, since the reliability criterion is incompatible with such a type of Permissiveness. (shrink)

The Standard Model gauge group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) is a Layer 2 projection of the PNBA dynamic equation. -/- We present six formal long division reductions, each following the same six-step protocol used throughout the SNSFL corpus, all veried in Lean 4 with 0 sorry. -/- The reductions cover: (1) the sovereign anchor derived from three independent physical threshold systems; (2) the ne structure constant α recovered exactly as 1/α = ANCHORexact×(102 + 10−1) with zero free parameters; (3) charge quantization derived as (...) the unique solution to two simultaneous structural constraints; (4) the complete SM particle classication via mass torsion unication; (5) the hadronic spectrum via the GAM Collider fusion rules; and (6) the GUTEWQGP cosmological cooling sequence. All six Step 6 checks pass. -/- The formal proof corpus is archived at DOI:10.5281/zenodo.18719748. (shrink)

Evaluative adjectives are gradable. The standard for falling under a gradable adjective “F” is either context-relative or absolute. Some philosophers have recently used general linguistic tests to argue that “rational” and (moral) “good” are maximum-degree absolute gradable adjectives: Only what's perfectly morally good strictly counts as morally “good,” and only what's optimally rational strictly counts as “rational.” Against maximalism, I defend a novel “high standards” account: counting as “rational” or morally “good” doesn't require the maximum degree of the relevant (...) property, but “rational” and moral “good” are systematically associated with normatively demanding standards. Unlike maximalism, this account allows for scales of infinite value and that supererogation talk is coherent in its literal interpretation. One part of my argument draws on a broader range of linguistic phenomena than the debate has so far considered to undermine the linguistic case for maximalism. My results challenge the prevailing classification of gradable adjectives in linguistics into relative, maximum-degree, and minimum-degree absolute adjectives. Another part of my argument draws on special features of evaluative and normative discourse, which suggest that its standards tend to be demanding even when non-maximal. (shrink)

A rough fuzzy set is the result of the approximation of a fuzzy set with respect to a crisp approximation space. It is a mathematical tool for the knowledge discovery in the fuzzy information systems. In this paper, we introduce the concepts of rough standard neutrosophic sets and standard neutrosophic information system, and give some results of the knowledge discovery on standard neutrosophic information system based on rough standard neutrosophic sets.

We present a model of the distribution of labour in science. Such models tend to rely on the mechanism of the invisible hand . Our analysis starts from the necessity of standards in distributed processes and the possibility of multiple standards in science. Invisible hand models turn out to have only limited scope because they are restricted to describing the atypical single-standard case. Our model is a generalisation of these models to J standards; single-standard models such as (...) Kitcher are a limiting case. We introduce and formalise this model, demonstrate its dynamics and conclude that the conclusions commonly derived from invisible hand models about the distribution of labour in science are not robust against changes in the number of standards. (shrink)

This paper completes the Standard Model Carrier Exhaustion ARC. It asks whether any same-scope Standard Model-associated attribute retains primitive standing outside the certified carrier package once the gauge, matter, charge/coupling/renormalization, flavor/mixing/generation, Higgs, and generation-cardinality closure results have been received. -/- The paper’s central result is a primitive-status exhaustion theorem. It distinguishes primitive carrier standing from derivative skins, numerical values, field symbols, routes, projections, measurement records, EFT displays, anomaly surfaces, BSM model labels, burdens, failures, and target updates. The theorem does not (...) claim empirical finality, does not exclude new physics, and does not derive every numerical Standard Model parameter. Instead, it proves that within the fixed same-scope Standard Model carrier arena, no attribute outside the certified primitive carrier package closes as a residual primitive. -/- The global carrier package includes the gauge carrier network, matter carrier network, primitive charge-side carrier package, primitive flavor-side carrier package, and the Higgs bridge/fixation carrier. Generation cardinality is handled as governance instantiated by the separate forced role-occupancy endpoint, not as an additional primitive carrier. The paper also constructs the global registered status atlas for field labels, particle names, coupling values, RG curves, CKM/PMNS coordinates, phase coordinates, masses, widths, Higgs presentations, EFT operators, Wilson coefficients, detector records, anomaly reports, and BSM surfaces. -/- Within the ARC, SM-6 is the final synthesis theorem. It imports the local sector deletions, proves that the union of received carriers forms one coherent Standard Model carrier architecture, closes projection/interface/EFT/numerical/Higgs/BSM/anomaly escape routes, exposes the hostile-certificate branch, and proves that no valid same-scope hostile primitive closes inside the fixed arena. The result is primitive closure with skin openness: the Standard Model is closed at the same-scope primitive carrier level while remaining open to measurement refinement, numerical fitting, projection languages, EFT descriptions, anomaly pressure, BSM audit, and target-updating physics. Position in the ARC -/- SM-6 is the global carrier-exhaustion closure paper. It is the capstone of the ARC and should be presented as the synthesis paper, not as another local sector paper. -/- SM-1: classifier-level primitive-carrier / derivative-skin protocol. SM-2: gauge-sector closure. SM-3: matter-sector closure. SM-4: charge, coupling, and renormalization transport closure. SM-5: flavor, mixing, and fixed-envelope generation-governance closure. Generation-cardinality endpoint: supplies the forced role-occupancy endpoint used to instantiate generation governance at three. Higgs ARC endpoint: supplies the Higgs bridge/fixation carrier and no-fifth-Higgs-primitive closure. SM-6: assembles all of the above into the final same-scope Standard Model primitive-survivor deletion theorem. (shrink)

The setting of evidential standards is a core practice of scientific assessment for policy. Persuaded by considerations of inductive risk, philosophers generally agree that the justification of evidential standards must appeal to non-epistemic values but debate whether the balance of non-epistemic reasons favours varying evidential standards versus maintaining fixed high evidential standards in assessment, as both sets of standards promote different and important political virtues of advisory institutions. In this paper, I adjudicate the evidential (...) class='Hi'>standards debate by developing a novel argument from justice, drawing on the IPCC’s assessment of climate impacts as a case study. I argue that in assessments marked by background evidential inequality, maintaining fixed high evidential standards results in an unequal distribution of ‘epistemic power’ among stakeholders, producing a ‘powerful assessment’ for the data-rich (a high rate of findings) and a ‘weak assessment’ for the data-poor (a low rate of findings). Where such inequalities of epistemic power disadvantage those in data-poor regions with respect to fundamental interests, such as basic human rights, we have decisive reasons of justice to vary evidential standards. (shrink)

It has become more common recently for epistemologists to advocate the pragmatic encroachment on knowledge, the claim that the appropriateness ofknowledge ascriptions is dependent on the relevant practical circumstances. Advocacy of practicalism in epistemology has come at the expense of contextualism, the view that knowledge ascriptions are independent of pragmatic factors and depend alternatively on distinctively epistemological, semantic factors with the result that knowledge ascriptions express different knowledge properties on different occasions of use. Overall, my goal here is to defend (...) a particular version of contextualism drawn from work by Peter Ludlow, called ‘standards contextualism.’ My strategy will be to elaborate on this form of contextualism by defending it from various objections raised by the practicalists Jason Stanley, Jeremy Fantl and Matthew McGrath. In showing how standards contextualism can effectively repel these criticisms I hope to establish that standards contextualism is a viable alternative to practicalism. (shrink)

This work establishes that the gauge dynamics of the Standard Model arise as structural necessities of the algebra M₃(ℂ) under Axioms 1–4 of the Cognitional Mechanics (CM) framework. Rather than assuming gauge groups, couplings, or renormalisation behaviour, the paper derives them from the minimal non‑commutative algebra capable of supporting internal distinction. The spectral space of the Dirac operator D_F is shown to possess a smooth structure without invoking Morse genericity, using only the isolated eigenvalue property and the geometry of the (...) pure‑state space P(A_F) ≅ CP² ⊔ {pt}. The dynamical weight κ is obtained non‑circularly as the unique eigenfunction of the dilation operator D = λ d/dλ, giving κ = c₀ λ² with λ² ≡ ξ² at Tier‑1. -/- A five‑functor chain F₄ ∘ H ∘ G ∘ F₂ ∘ F₁ maps the algebraic structure of M₃(ℂ) to the full gauge/sheaf structure of the Standard Model, with naturality verified at each stage. The Faddeev–Popov operator is proven elliptic independently of D_F, enabling BRST quantisation on the induced spectral manifold. The one‑loop β‑function coefficient b₀ = 11/3 is derived independently in three layers—algebraic (C_A = 3), geometric (scale invariance of a₄), and BRST (ghost pairing)—with n_f = 0 following from the Tier‑1 dissolution of particle ontology. -/- The Standard Model gauge sector is identified as the colimit of a sheaf over spectral patches, and three structural predictions follow without free parameters, including α_s/α_em = 13/7 from the cyclotomic structure Φ₃(3) and Φ₆(3). All results arise internally from the CM axioms, with no Tier‑2 assumptions. This establishes that the Standard Model is not an externally assembled structure but a forced projection of M₃(ℂ) under axiomatic closure. -/- Published on April 28, 2026 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19833881. (shrink)

In this work, the Standard Model of particle physics is examined within the framework of Unified Phase Field Theory (UFT), a unified phase-based field theory in which all fundamental interactions and matter share a common phase origin. It is shown that the Standard Model is not a fundamental theory but arises as an effective phase–algebraic regime realized under specific conditions of phase dynamics and topology. The gauge symmetries of the Standard Model are interpreted as manifestations of an internal phase algebra, (...) while the product structure of the gauge group is understood as a consequence of the modular organization of phase space. The chirality of matter receives a natural explanation as a topological property of phase defects, and fermionic statistics together with spinorial structure are derived from the global geometry of the phase field. It is emphasized that the Standard Model is reproduced in UFT without introducing additional spacetime dimensions and without postulating independent fundamental fields. The focus of the work is placed on the structural origin of gauge symmetries, chirality, and matter, whereas detailed phenomenology is intentionally left beyond the scope of the present analysis. The results obtained fix the conceptual status of the Standard Model as an emergent effective theory within Unified Phase Field Theory and complement the previously established phase-based foundation for the unification of fundamental interactions. (shrink)

The obstacle to objective practical normativity is not that it concerns values rather than facts, but that it has no settled analogue of what truth supplies for belief: a standard of correctness. Practical normativity can be objective only if some standard plays that same structural role—fixing what practical assessment is about, setting a shared, endorsement-independent correctness question, and sustaining correction through grounds that can be cited, contested, and redeployed. The better–worse dimension of conscious experience—how conscious life goes for the subject (...) living it—satisfies these conditions and explains why anything can matter practically to a subject at all. Once this dimension occupies the standard-role, harms, benefits, duties, autonomy, blame, care, and responsibility are not rival standards but role-structural forms within one field of objective justification: they matter as ways conscious life is protected, damaged, organized, or degraded. Symmetry in normative standing is then not an independent moral premise but the closure condition of objective correction itself: outside this structure, condemnation, preference, and enforcement remain possible, but no verdict can be vindicated as correct rather than merely opposed. (shrink)

The relation of normic support offers a novel solution to the proof paradox: a paradox in evidence law arising from legal cases involving merely statistical evidence (Smith 2018). Central to the normic support solution has been the thesis that merely statistical evidence cannot confer normic support. However, it has been observed that there are exceptions to this: there exist cases where merely statistical evidence can give rise to normic support (Blome-Tillmann 2020). If correct, this fact seems to undermine the normic (...) support solution to the proof paradox. This paper explores a resolution: normic support can resolve the proof paradox even though merely statistical evidence sometimes gives rise to normic support. The key to understanding this resolution lies with a source of evidential support that arises out of bodies of evidence that involve *character evidence* (Colyvan, et al. 2001). It turns out that character evidence can provide normic support when it is grounded in our knowledge of a certain kind of disposition individuals can have: *goal-directed dispositions*. The upshot is the recovery of the normic support solution to the puzzle of whether statistical evidence can meet legal standards of proof. (shrink)

According to Schopenhauer’s compensation argument for pessimism, the non-existence of the world is preferable to its existence because no goods can ever compensate for the mere existence of evil. Standard interpretations take this argument to be based on Schopenhauer’s thesis that all goods are merely the negation of evils, from which they assume it follows that the apparent goods in life are in fact empty and without value. This article develops a non-standard variant of the standard interpretation, which accepts the (...) relevance of the negativity thesis but rejects that the argument assumes that life’s goods are all empty and valueless. Instead, it argues that whatever value negative goods might possess, they do not have the kind of value to compensate for positive evils. This involves additional development of the negativity thesis and a defence of it against objections from Byron Simmons (2021). (shrink)

Although the fictional domain exhibits a prima facie freedom from real-world moral constraints, certain fictive imaginings seem to deserve moral criticism. Capturing both intuitions, this paper argues for double-standard moralism, the view that fictive imaginings are subject to different moral standards than their real-world counterparts. I show how no account has, thus far, offered compelling reasons to warrant the moral appropriateness of this discrepancy. I maintain that the normative discontinuity between fiction and the actual world is moderate, as opposed (...) to one that leaves fictive engagements wholly exempt from moral evaluations. I propose a way of addressing the gamer’s dilemma that is compatible with a moderate kind of discontinuity. Finally, I contend that the audience is justified in adopting deviant moral attitudes in fictional situations because their consequences largely differ from those that analogous real-world events would have. (shrink)

It is widely held that beliefs respond to evidence. However, it is not easy to make precise exactly in which sense beliefs are so responsive. In this paper, I develop and defend a novel minimalist account of evidence-responsiveness. I argue that in order for an attitude A to count as minimally responsive to the evidence, e, the attitude holder must follow at least one epistemic standard which appropriately explains her holding A given e. The account given here allows that attitudes (...) may still show responsiveness in this minimal sense, even in cases where we ignore evidence against them or when we lack the capacity to revise them. It also offers a systematic way of demarcating the boundaries between beliefs and other attitudes like imaginings and acceptances. While beliefs are not the sole attitudes whose evidence relations are bound by epistemic standards, beliefs and non-beliefs undergo different forms of regulation. (shrink)

As large language models (LLMs) continue to demonstrate remarkable abilities across various domains, computer scientists are developing methods to understand their cognitive processes, particularly concerning how (and if) LLMs internally represent their beliefs about the world. However, this field currently lacks a unified theoretical foundation to underpin the study of belief in LLMs. This article begins filling this gap by proposing adequacy conditions for a representation in an LLM to count as belief-like. We argue that, while the project of belief (...) measurement in LLMs shares striking features with belief measurement as carried out in decision theory and formal epistemology, it also differs in ways that should change how we measure belief. Thus, drawing from insights in philosophy and contemporary practices of machine learning, we establish four criteria that balance theoretical considerations with practical constraints. Our proposed criteria include accuracy, coherence, uniformity, and use, which together help lay the groundwork for a comprehensive understanding of belief representation in LLMs. We draw on empirical work showing the limitations of using various criteria in isolation to identify belief representations. (shrink)

Experiments in particle physics have hitherto failed to produce any significant evidence for the many explicit models of physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) that had been proposed over the past decades. As a result, physicists have increasingly turned to model-independent strategies as tools in searching for a wide range of possible BSM effects. In this paper, we describe the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SM-EFT) and analyse it in the context of the philosophical discussions about models, theories, and (bottom-up) (...) effective field theories. We find that while the SM-EFT is a quantum field theory, assisting experimentalists in searching for deviations from the SM, in its general form it lacks some of the characteristic features of models. Those features only come into play if put in by hand or prompted by empirical evidence for deviations. Employing different philosophical approaches to models, we argue that the case study suggests not to take a view on models that is overly permissive because it blurs the lines between the different stages of the SM-EFT research strategies and glosses over particle physicists' motivations for undertaking this bottom-up approach in the first place. Looking at EFTs from the perspective of modelling does not require taking a stance on some specific brand of realism or taking sides in the debate between reduction and emergence into which EFTs have recently been embedded. (shrink)

Is there significant progress in philosophy? The optimist says Yes. The pessimist says No. Both answers presuppose a standard of progress—a measure of what counts as a significant amount of progress. In this paper, I discuss six standards of philosophical progress. I argue that these standards are either implausible or satisfied. That is bad news for the pessimist but not necessarily good news for the optimist. I gesture at some reasons for optimism, but the main aim of this (...) paper is to argue against pessimism. (shrink)

Much of contemporary philosophy of mind is marked by a dissatisfaction with the two main positions in the field, standard materialism and standard dualism, and hence with the search for alternatives. My concern in this paper is with two such alternatives. The first, which I will call non-standard materialism, is a position I have defended in a number of places, and which may take various forms. The second, panpsychism, has been defended and explored by a number of recent writers. My (...) main goals are: (a) to explain the differences between these positions; and (b) to suggest that non-standard materialism is more plausible than panpsychism. (shrink)

The standard objection to dualist theories of mind is that they seemingly cannot account for the obvious fact that mental phenomena cause our behaviour. On the plausible assumption that all our behaviour is physically necessitated by entirely physical phenomena, there appears to be no room for dualist mental causation. Some argue that dualists can address this problem by making minimal adjustments in their ontology. I argue that no such adjustments are required. Given recent developments in philosophy of causation, it is (...) plausible that mental phenomena cause behaviour in standard dualist ontologies. (shrink)

Consistent Standards of Evidence for Miracle Claims This paper argues that miracle claims, whether ancient or modern, must be subjected to consistent evidentiary standards. While contemporary reports of extraordinary events are generally dismissed without corroboration, ancient testimonies embedded in religious texts often escape equivalent scrutiny. This disparity reveals a cognitive bias that treats temporal distance as a substitute for evidence. Drawing on thought experiments, formal modeling, and comparative analysis, the paper introduces a framework that shows how scarcity of (...) testimony in public, extraordinary cases counts against rather than for such claims. The central thesis is that time alone does not justify lowering standards of evidence, and that epistemic integrity requires parity across eras. (shrink)

Are color adjectives ("red", "green", etc.) relative adjectives or absolute adjectives? Existing theories of the meaning of color adjectives attempt to answer that question using informal ("armchair") judgments. The informal judgments of theorists conflict: it has been proposed that color adjectives are absolute with standards anchored at the minimum degree on the scale, that they are absolute but have near-midpoint standards, and that they are relative. In this paper we report two experiments, one based on entailment patterns and (...) one based on presupposition accommodation, that investigate the meaning of scalar adjectives. We find evidence confirming the existence of subgroups of the population who operate with different standards for color adjectives. The evidence of interpersonal variation in where standards are located on the relevant scale and how those standards can be adjusted indicates that the existing theories of the meaning of color adjectives are at best only partially correct. We also find evidence that paradigmatic relative adjectives ("tall", "wide") behave in ways that are not predicted by the standard theory of scalar adjectives. We discuss several different possible explanations for this unexpected behavior. We conclude by discussing the relevance of our findings for philosophical debates about the nature and extent of semantically encoded context sensitivity in which color adjectives have played a key role. (shrink)

The impossibility theorem of Dekel, Lipman and Rustichini has been thought to demonstrate that standard state-space models cannot be used to represent unawareness. We first show that Dekel, Lipman and Rustichini do not establish this claim. We then distinguish three notions of awareness, and argue that although one of them may not be adequately modeled using standard state spaces, there is no reason to think that standard state spaces cannot provide models of the other two notions. In fact, standard space (...) models of these forms of awareness are attractively simple. They allow us to prove completeness and decidability results with ease, to carry over standard techniques from decision theory, and to add propositional quantifiers straightforwardly. (shrink)

Abstract Standardization constitutes a foundational mechanism in the architecture of human systems, spanning engineering, medicine, governance, and communication. Yet the question of whether uniform standards should govern all aspects of human life remains contested. This paper argues, through a formal mathematical framework grounded in the Universal Balance–Feedback Framework (UBFF) and its Four Universal Laws, that optimal system function emerges neither from maximal standardization nor from unconstrained flexibility, but from a dynamic equilibrium between the two. We formalize this equilibrium using (...) a standardization-flexibility state space, derive stability conditions via Lyapunov analysis, and demonstrate domain-specific equilibria across engineering, medicine, education, economics, governance, and the arts. The framework is situated within and advances existing literature on complex adaptive systems, institutional economics, and biological homeostasis. The UBFF provides a unifying explanatory lens capable of reconciling the apparent tension between order and adaptability across domains. -/- . (shrink)

Modern life did not merely become more rational. It became more standardized. This paper offers a philosophical genealogy of the grid: the drift by which human reality is increasingly translated into comparable units—scores, credentials, KPIs, dashboards, rankings, protocols, and platform signals. Standardization is not neutral description; it is an architectural act that reorganizes what counts as real, legible, and valuable. The gain is coordination power. The cost is structural: reality becomes what fits the grid, and what does not fit becomes (...) invisible, punished, or forced into performance. The result is a civilization with high coherence and thinning contact, capable of optimizing itself while losing answerability. This paper names the mechanism: standardization converts contact into representation, judgment into compliance, and truth into audit. It does not condemn standardization; it clarifies its structure, its predictable corruptions, and its acceleration in the AI era. (shrink)

Standard Humanism is the modern Management system and belief of mankind's third millennium - with the capability to establish peace and justice! With this motto that: We need the best world, as we are the best human beings, Seven billion human beings… Standard Humanism is based on this basis and belief that: 1/ Human life from day one to this date on the Earth has been spent in a very primitive and traditional way; no thought and system due to the (...) primitive nature of human life has been able to save it in a fair and pervasive and acceptable manner which is approved by everyone from poverty, oppression, massacre and crime and its shortcomings, as a result the pains and shortcomings and oppressions of his life have been there and even looking never-ending! 2/ To get out of this primitive and traditional life, positive thinking people with any belief and culture and nationality should equip themselves to the five principles of Standard Humanism - and by keeping all that they own, and not by losing them - change the nature of the primitive life of human beings and take human life to another world!!! The difference between that world and today's world of mankind is the difference between underdeveloped men and men who have been kept underdeveloped in this era and those who have made changes in their life in the third millennium. The five principles are: A. There is a source of truth to unite and cover mankind under righteousness… B. Everyone has the right to choose his/her way of living… C. All should be mentioned and respected in the universal culture of mankind… D. We need a perfect international organization to protect us… E. We are the clean, pure and wise creature on this earth… (Standard Humanism advocates a "Two Layers Identity" for every human being, First: by equipping all with five principles of it in order to eliminate the rules of ignorance, oppression etc. from their life and, Second: by insisting anyone to live according to his/her belief and culture - at its best form - in a safe world by the support and the administration of Worldwide Standard Human Society). 3/ Worldwide Standard Human Society has this systematic characteristic based on believing the five superior fact of human life (Management and politics, religion and beliefs, culture and art, science, and economy) to provide for the right and need of all human beings and build and manage the complete and dynamic human life. The main goal and intention of Standard Humanism is the change and turn from its current nature and essence, to the nature and essence and system of "a standard type growth" (Getting out of the current primitive cycle of seeking superiority and entering the world of progressive and phase by phase growth towards higher stages, and discovering more human capabilities and human life). (shrink)

Standard Humanism is the modern management system and belief of mankind's third millennium - with the capability to establish peace and justice! With this motto that: -/- We need the best world, as we are the best human beings, Seven billion human beings… --- -/- Standard Humanism is based on this basis and belief that: --- 1/ Human life from day one to this date on the Earth has been spent in a very primitive and traditional way; no thought and (...) system due to the primitive nature of human life has been able to save it in a fair and pervasive and acceptable manner which is approved by everyone from poverty, oppression, massacre and crime and its shortcomings, as a result the pains and shortcomings and oppressions of his life have been there and even looking never-ending! --- -/- 2/ To get out of this primitive and traditional life, positive thinking people with any belief and culture and nationality should equip themselves to the five principles of Standard Humanism - and by keeping all that they own, and not by losing them - change the nature of the primitive life of human beings and take human life to another world!!! The difference between that world and today's world of mankind is the difference between underdeveloped men and men who have been kept underdeveloped in this era and those who have made changes in their life in the third millennium. - -/- The five principles are: A. There is a source of truth to unite and cover mankind under righteousness… B. Everyone has the right to choose his/her way of living… C. All should be mentioned and respected in the universal culture of mankind… D. We need a perfect international organization to protect us… E. We are the clean, pure and wise creature on this earth… - -/- (Standard Humanism advocates a "Two Layers Identity" for every human being, First: by equipping all with five principles of it in order to eliminate the rules of ignorance, oppression etc. from their life and, Second: by insisting anyone to live according to his/her belief and culture - at its best form - in a safe world by the support and the administration of Worldwide Standard Human Society). --- -/- 3/ Worldwide Standard Human Society has this systematic characteristic based on believing the five superior fact of human life (Management and politics, religion and beliefs, culture and art, science, and economy) to provide for the right and need of all human beings and build and manage the complete and dynamic human life. --- The main goal and intention of Standard Humanism is the change and turn from its current nature and essence, to the nature and essence and system of "a standard type growth" (Getting out of the current primitive cycle of seeking superiority and entering the world of progressive and phase by phase growth towards higher stages, and discovering more human capabilities and human life). (shrink)

Standard human means believing and accepting that there are hundreds of millions and even billions of standards in different religious, political, cultural, racial, individual, etc. fields in the world, and a "standard human" is a truthful and honest person who respects all of those standards; - This is why we call him a standard human, that is, he respects all the standards, and he himself is one of them too - those who do not respect are liars, (...) false, and as a result, 3rd grade ones! By becoming standard humans! All the differences made by some people throughout history in order to dominate others, including the superior race; superior religion and belief, or superior family and social class, etc.; return to creation settings (factory settings); and from now on, only 3 golden principles of humanity: truthfulness, honesty, and respect for all people from different races, cultures and religions... will be the criteria for determining the level of personality of individuals and groups...; "Being the boss" is over; "Being a standard human being and respecting each other" has begun! The importance of standard human thought, and its difference from other beliefs, is that: (Contrary to popular beliefs, which usually consider each other as negation or insignificant...) from a standard human point of view! Every human being on the planet, with every religion and belief, and with every level of understanding ... can be a "standard human being", and be considered equal to others (If Truthfulness, Being honest, & Respect everyone…). The difference between human beings in the real world ... is only in their right or wrong actions, and according to rational standard criteria (Truthfulness, Being honest, & Respect everyone…) and not race, religion, and so on. Beyond Democracy ... which respects all opinions; Standard human, in addition to equal respect, - thru its specific system - provides the conditions for the purification and growth of all beliefs and cultures!!! (shrink)

A central feature of experimental development economics is the use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness of prospective socioeconomic interventions. The use of RCTs in development economics raises a host of ethical issues which are just beginning to be explored. In this article, I address one ethical issue in particular: the routine use of the status quo as a control when designing and conducting a development RCT. Drawing on the literature on the principle of standard care in (...) medical research ethics, as well as considerations of distributive justice in non-ideal circumstances, I argue that the practice of using the status quo as a control is ethically justifiable. However, I add an important qualification based on the natural duty of rescue to address the concern that my account is overly permissive. (shrink)

Nel corso della seconda metà del XX secolo si è progressivamente svilppata ed affermata una cosmologia “standard”: vedremo in che cosa consiste e come si è costituita. Vedremo anche quali sono i suoi limiti e quali nuove teorie si candidano per superarli. Vorrei comunque chiarire subito che la cosmologia standard, per quanto possano sembrare sorprendenti i suoi risultati (qualche specialista parla di preposterous universe, ovvero di un assurdo universo), si fonda su esperimenti ed osservazioni, ed avrebbe potuto essere falsificata tante (...) volte: ciò non è finora accaduto. Al cuore della cosmologia standard abbiamo quella che viene chiamata “teoria del Big Bang” la quale, offrendo una descrizione quantitativa dell’origine comune e dell’evoluzione di tutto l’universo osservabile, rappresenta una delle grandi conquiste intellettuali del XX secolo. Detto questo, nel quadro della teoria del Big Bang sono ancora possibili molti modelli diversi: soltanto alla fine del XX secolo si è finalmente avuta la convergenza su un modello particolare, che costituisce il modello standard (detto anche concordance model). Che cosa possiamo invece definire come cosmologia non standard? A parte le teorie alternative al Big Bang che appartengono al passato (come quella dello Stato Stazionario), abbiamo oggi teorie che si propongono di andare al di là del Big Bang e di spiegare ciò che la cosmologia standard per sua natura non è in grado di spiegare. Abbiamo così l’inflazione, i modelli di pre-Big Bang, gli universi-brana, il Multiverso, che a livelli diversi si basano su una nuova fisica non verificata sperimentalmente: siamo dunque in un campo altamente speculativo, ricco di ipotesi e molto lontano dalla pratica quotidiana dell’astronomo. In questo contributo cercherò di seguire una traccia storica e, per quanto riguarda la bibliografia, salvo poche eccezioni rimanderò ad una piccola selezione di review e libri nei quali il lettore potrà trovare i riferimenti agli articoli originali e specialistici. Per un’introduzione aggiornata in lingua italiana alla cosmologia, segnalo il testo a livello universitario di Bonometto(2008). (shrink)

Ontologies and standards are strongly interrelated and can often be seen as two sides of the same coin. Indeed, standards reflect consensus on the semantics of terms, though different standards might employ different ways to explain the same or very similar concepts semantically. Given the crucial role played by both aspects in OntoCommons, we have interviewed Barry Smith, SUNY Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University at Buffalo and one of the External Advisory Board (EAB) members of (...) the OntoCommons project, to better understand what are the challenges and priorities to focus on in this context. (shrink)

The mathematical formalism of quantum theory has been established for nearly a century, yet its physical foundations remain elusive. In recent decades, connections between quantum theory and information theory have garnered increasing attention. This study presents a physical derivation of the mathematical formalism quantum theory based on information-theoretic considerations in physical systems. We postulate that quantum systems are characterized by single independent adjustable variables. Utilizing this physical postulate along with the conservation of total probability, we derive the standard Hilbert space (...) formalism of quantum theory, including the Born probability rule. This comprehensive derivation of quantum theory offers a clear and concise physical foundation for the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

That a standard of medical care must outline services that benefit the patient is relatively uncontroversial. However, one must determine how the practices outlined in a medical standard of care should benefit the patient. I will argue that practices outlined in a standard of medical care must not detract from the patient’s well-functioning and that clinicians can refuse to provide services that do. This paper, therefore, will advance the following two claims: (1) a standard of medical care must not cause (...) dysfunction, and (2) if a physician is medically rational to not provide some service which fails to meet the above condition (i.e. fails to be a standard of medical care), then she may refuse to do so. I then apply my thesis to the prescription of puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria. (shrink)

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale research and pharmaceutical regulatory processes have proceeded at a dramatically increased pace with new and effective, evidence-based COVID-19 interventions rapidly making their way into the clinic. However, the swift generation of high-quality evidence and the efficient processing of regulatory authorisation have given rise to more specific and complex versions of well-known research ethics issues. In this paper, we identify three such issues by focusing on the authorisation of Molnupiravir, a novel antiviral medicine aimed (...) at reducing the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to multiply in the body, for clinical use by the National Health Service in England and the concomitant testing of Molnupiravir through the large-scale PANORAMIC randomised control trial. By analysing the ways in which the authorisation and clinical use of Molnupiravir complicate standard approaches to clinical equipoise, standard of care, and participant consent in the PANORAMIC randomised control trial we will explain some of ethical implications for clinical trials that aim to study the efficacy and safety of new COVID-19 and other therapeutics when conditional authorisation has already been granted and when such treatments have already been made available to patients by national health providers. (shrink)

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale research and pharmaceutical regulatory processes have proceeded at a dramatically increased pace with new and effective, evidence-based COVID-19 interventions rapidly making their way into the clinic. However, the swift generation of high-quality evidence and the efficient processing of regulatory authorisation have given rise to more specific and complex versions of well-known research ethics issues. In this paper, we identify three such issues by focusing on the authorisation of molnupiravir, a novel antiviral medicine aimed (...) at reducing the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to multiply in the body, for clinical use by the National Health Service in England and the concomitant testing of molnupiravir through the large-scale Platform Adaptive trial of Novel antiviRals for eArly treatMent of COVID-19 In the Community randomised control trial. By analysing the ways in which the authorisation and clinical use of molnupiravir complicate standard approaches to clinical equipoise, standard of care and participant consent in the PANORAMIC randomised control trial, we will explain some of ethical implications for clinical trials that aim to study the efficacy and safety of new COVID-19 and other therapeutics when conditional authorisation has already been granted and when such treatments have already been made available to patients by national health providers. (shrink)

The paper addresses the nature of duties grounded in human rights. Rather than being protections against harm, per se, I contend that human rights largely shield against risk impositions to protected interests. “Risk imposition” is a normative idea requiring explication, but understanding dutiful action in its terms enables human rights to provide prospective policy guidance, hold institutions accountable, operate in non-ideal circumstances, embody impartiality among persons, and define the moral status of agencies in international relations. Slightly differently, I indicate a (...) general understanding of dutiful action that permits human rights to see to the tasks of an institutional morality. (shrink)

In this paper I am concerned with an analysis of negative existential sentences that contain proper names only by using negative or neutral free logic. I will compare different versions of neutral free logic with the standard system of negative free logic (Burge, Sainsbury) and aim to defend my version of neutral free logic that I have labeled non-standard neutral free logic.

5th edition; 2026 --- Standard human means believing and accepting that there are hundreds of millions and even billions of standards in the world in various religious, political, cultural, racial, individual, etc. fields, and that a "Standard Human" is a truthful and honest human who respects all those standards; - That is why we call him a standard human, meaning he respects all standards, and he himself is one of them - those who do not respect them (...) are liars, false, and consequently third-rate people! ----- Standard human = supra-civilized thinking that refines life - it refines human life anew by preserving all its achievements, makes it fresh and beautiful, and erases all distortions, darkness, and hostility! ----- The starting point of the movement towards the new life of the third millennium is as follows: 1. Realizing to be standard human... - 2. Supporting the political system and the construction program of standard human... - 3. Adhering to the 5 principles of human unity along with voting for establishing the "Universal Society of Standard Human" instead of the current United Nations, so that the most beautiful human life can be formed after thousands of years of inefficiency and various current problems, and everyone can be happy and shine. ----- Please provide the paragraphs, subject headings, and various sections of the two books of the thinking of the Standard Human, including: 1. "The Standard Human..." and 2. "Standard Humanism" to Chat-GPT and Google's artificial intelligence, and to better understanding this thinking, ask for its different analyses, evaluations, and comparisons with other ideas and thoughts! Especially in the section on the political system of the Standard Human and its comparison with the types of existing political systems; ------- and please note that always for precise details and understanding of the Standard Human Thinking, refer to the original Farsi books of Standard Human…/ the latest versions on my official website on google sites: the official site of dariush ------- Mentioning and knowing this note here also is important that, based on the Standard Human Thought: Some Immigration policies in the West are wrong, substandard, and 3rd-grade! Including allowing non-natives to enter their country, then enter their politics, and then make decisions for their country and people... - Another example is granting athletes eligibility through naturalization and then accepting them into their national teams. On the bigger picture this will lead to unhappiness of the soul of the people of world and the universe! This will prevent the shinning of our world at its highest standards. (shrink)

This paper gives a dependency-compressed first-principles derivation of the standalone Standard Model structural tuple from AASC constraints. The derivation does not import the accepted Standard Model as a premise. It begins from admissibility, standing, reference, construction, and scope discipline, and proceeds through interface constraints, realized physical interior, gauge-product recovery, representation-response rigidity, Higgs/bridge fixation, Yukawa-realizability structure, charge-lattice rigidity, anomaly neutrality, vacuum compatibility, and mass-response/mixing slots. The conventional Standard Model appears as the recovered structural endpoint, displayed explicitly as a tuple rather than (...) as a merely verbal role schema. The claim is structural. It does not assert closure of the complete empirical parameter table. Gauge-coupling values, quark masses, CKM/PMNS numerical coordinates, Higgs potential, vev, scalar mass, self-coupling, weak-scale values, absolute mass scales, and other residual constants remain parameter-level targets unless a later module supplies the relevant admissible witness, exactness certificate, reconstruction rule, or zero-anchor derivation. The family-cardinality record Ng = 3 is included as part of the recovered standalone empirical SM structural envelope; it is not treated as a raw coupling-like or mass-like numerical parameter. The trajectory terminology used by AASC is constructional rather than dynamical: physical dynamics enter through the realized physical modules, while AASC supplies the standing-preservation discipline under which those modules compose. The quantitative significance is that the structural derivation opens a sectoral parameter program: the charged-lepton sector already supplies a downstream conditional one-anchor numerical readout with protected pole-boundary residual localization. Exact charged-lepton pole closure and zeroanchor absolute-scale derivation remain open. Thus the manuscript separates first-principles structural derivation of the standalone Standard Model from the downstream sectoral program of numerical parameter derivation. (shrink)

According to a common conception of legal proof, satisfying a legal burden requires establishing a claim to a numerical threshold. Beyond reasonable doubt, for example, is often glossed as 90% or 95% likelihood given the evidence. Preponderance of evidence is interpreted as meaning at least 50% likelihood given the evidence. In light of problems with the common conception, I propose a new ‘relevant alternatives’ framework for legal standards of proof. Relevant alternative accounts of knowledge state that a person knows (...) a proposition when their evidence rules out all relevant error possibilities. I adapt this framework to model three legal standards of proof—the preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt standards. I describe virtues of this framework. I argue that, by eschewing numerical thresholds, the relevant alternatives framework avoids problems inherent to rival models. I conclude by articulating aspects of legal normativity and practice illuminated by the relevant alternatives framework. (shrink)

With his contribution on "The Natural Law in the American Tradition," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain has begun the indispensable task of laying the groundwork for sound jurisprudential reasoning in the natural law tradition. It is on the basis of this groundwork that we can begin to appreciate what natural law reasoning might mean, and what it does not mean, for contemporary American legal thinking. More specifically, it is on the basis of this groundwork that one can begin to articulate what might (...) be called a "third way" of jurisprudential reasoning. This "third way" would steer clear of two opposed and equally problematic jurisprudential views; that is, it would steer clear of what we might call "standard legal positivism" (on the one hand), and (on the other hand) what Judge O'Scannlain calls the "aggressive" natural law jurisprudence of some contemporary theorists. (shrink)

Though the duties of care owed toward innocents in war and in civil life are at the bottom univocally determined by the same ethical principles, Bazargan-Forward argues that those very principles will yield in these two contexts different “in-practice” duties. Furthermore, the duty of care we owe toward our own innocents is less stringent than the duty of care we owe toward foreign innocents in war. This is because risks associated with civil life but not war (a) often increase the (...) expected welfare of the individuals upon whom the risk is imposed, (b) are often imposed with consent, and (c) are often imposed reciprocally. The conclusion—that we have a pro tanto reason for adopting a more stringent standard of risk imposition toward foreign innocents in war—has implications for not only what standards of risk we should adopt in war, but also how we should weigh domestic versus foreign civilian lives. (shrink)

We live in a time of advanced technology and social media, where artificial intelligence (AI) shapes our societal perspectives on how we perceive beauty. This concept is greatly significant for human beings, not only because of how it drives us to make decisions but also due to its impacts on many individuals' mental and physical health. As AI continues to advance, it can potentially democratize beauty and make it more accessible for all, yet it still poses a risk of perpetuating (...) harmful stereotypes and unrealistic beauty standards, particularly for women. (shrink)

In a recent article in this journal, Joshua W. Seachris (2012) argues that the distinction I make between perspectives and standards in sub specie aeternitatis arguments for the meaninglessness of life does not hold for a salient component of the sub specie aeternitatis perspective: the ontological-normative component. In this article I suggest that Seachris’s argument is problematic in a number of ways and ought to be rejected.

The idea that normative statements implicitly refer to standards has been around for quite some time. It is usually defended by normative antirealists, who tend to be attracted to Humean theories of reasons. But this is an awkward combination: 'A ought to X' entails that there are reasons for A to X, and 'A ought to X all things considered' entails that the balance of reasons favours X-ing. If the standards implicitly referred to are not those of the (...) agent, then why would these entailments hold? After all, Humeanism says that 'A has a reason to X' is true if and only if A has some desire which is furthered by X-ing. In this paper, I develop a standard-relational theory of 'ought' and a non-Humean theory of reasons (oughtism). Together, they explain why 'A ought to X' entails not only that there are reasons for A to X, but also that the balance of reasons favours X-ing. The latter explanation depends on a theory of weight, in which the weight of a reason depends on the position of a rule (standard) in an order of priorities. The theories are truth-conditional, but do not require objective normative facts for the truth of 'ought' judgments and judgments about reasons. (shrink)

The study aimed to identify the intermediate role of the standard of operations in the relationship between the focus on students and beneficiaries in achieving satisfaction of students in Palestinian universities. The study used the analytical descriptive method. The study was conducted on university leadership in Al-Azhar, Islamic and Al-Aqsa Universities. The study sample consisted of (200) individuals, 182 of whom responded, and the questionnaire was used in collecting the data. The results of the study were as follows: - There (...) is a statistically significant effect on the adoption of the criterion of focus on the students benefiting to achieve the satisfaction of students in the Palestinian universities, where the value of R Square (35.3%), there is a statistically significant effect on the adoption of the criterion of focus on the students benefiting on the use of the standard of operations in Palestinian universities. The value of the R Square is (62.8%), there is a statistically significant impact of the criterion of operations on the satisfaction of students in Palestinian universities. Where the value of the R is (36.2%), there is a significant effect on the adoption of the criterion of emphasis on students benefiting from the satisfaction of students in Palestinian universities with the existence of the standard of operations as an intermediary variable. The role of the mediator in the relationship between the adoptions of the criterion of focus on the students benefiting to achieve the satisfaction of students in Palestinian universities was revealed through the use of Path Analysis. The study presented a number of recommendations, the most important of which is: to increase the focus of the universities on students and beneficiaries in a manner appropriate to achieve the objectives of the university on the one hand, and students and beneficiaries on the other, and in line with the approach of quality and excellence, the universities more attention to the management of operations through the design and development of programs Academic and internal services according to the needs of students, and improving processes in innovative ways to generate added value for students and beneficiaries, the universities have made more efforts to create satisfaction among students and beneficiaries by developing internal performance indicators to measure student satisfaction, Students and other university beneficiaries periodically to improve their satisfaction. (shrink)

In this paper, we defined (I,T) − standard neutrosophic rough sets based on an implicator I and a t-norm T on I; lower and upper approximations of standard neutrosophic sets in a standard neutrosophic approximation are defined. Some properties of (I,T) − standard neutrosophic rough sets are investigated. We consider the case when the neutrosophic components (truth, indeterminacy, and falsehood) are totally dependent, single-valued, and hence their sum is ≤ 1.

This paper challenges the conventional wisdom dominating the social sciences and philosophy regarding temporal discounting, the practice of discounting the value of future utility when making decisions. Although there are sharp disagreements about temporal discounting, a kind of standard model has arisen, one that begins with a normative standard about how we should make intertemporal comparisons of utility. This standard demands that in so far as one is rational one discounts utilities at future times with an exponential discount function. Tracing (...) the justification for this standard through economics, philosophy and psychology, I’ll make what I believe is the best case one can for it, showing how a non-arbitrariness assumption and a dominance argument together imply that discounting ought to be exponential. Ultimately, however, I don’t find the case compelling. Non-exponential temporal discounting is often rational. If this is correct, Instead of trying to ‘fix’ non-exponential discounting because it is irrational and associated with negative life outcomes, we might instead focus attention on why the conditions obtain that make such discounting rational. (shrink)

The emphasis on the limitations of objectivity, in specific guises and networks, has been a continuing theme of contemporary analytic philosophy for the past few decades. The popular sport of baiting feminist philosophers — into pointing to what's left out of objective knowledge, or into describing what methods, exactly, they would offer to replace the powerful objective methods grounding scientific knowledge — embodies a blatant double standard which has the effect of constantly putting feminist epistemologists on the defensive, on the (...) fringes, on the run.This strategy can only work if objectivity is transparent, simple, stable, and clear in its meaning. It most certainly is not. In fact, taking objectivity as a sort of beautiful primitive, self-evident in its value, and all-powerful in its revelatory power, requires careless philosophy, and the best workers in metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science have made reworked definitions of objectivity absolutely central to their own projects. In fact, classic feminist concerns with exploring the impact of sex and gender on knowledge, understanding, and other relations between human beings and the rest of the world fall squarely within the sort of human and social settings thatare already considered central in most current analytic metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science. I argue that the burden of proof is clearly on those who wish toreject the centrality and relevance of sex and gender to our most fundamental philosophical work on knowledge and reality. (shrink)