rewrite some of intro of chapter III

(most) Infinite idealizations do not have a clear transition point because they only display the limiting behavior at 0 or infinity.md

@@ -51,7 +51,8 @@ This is *also* not true in the ballspace example, let’s construct it:
 >
 > 1. At thickness 1km the space is simply connected
  2. If a system of thickness N does not display the thing, then the system of thickness N-1nm also does not display the thing
-    C. There does not exist a thickness N that is multiply connected
+>
+> C. There does not exist a thickness N that is multiply connected
 
 
 ## So all hope is lost?

Chapters/II. Idealizations/3. A New Categorization of Idealization.md

@@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ This distinction is both due to Strevens and Norton, and is what I believe the m
 
 This is a distinction based on _result_: _what_ is the idealization like? (Not too sure about this characterization, not very catchy)
 
+An example of a boring, yet infinite & non-simple idealization is Norton’s capsule: a sphere elongated at both ends will approach and eventually reach the same Area/Volume ratio as cylinder as the length of the elongated sphere approached $\infty$. The operation is clearly asymptotic, and the idealized parameter is clearly indirect, as we are not directly setting either the surface or volume. Yet the result is not an interesting one, as the limit is approached smooth
+
 ### Absent vs. Contradictory
 
 (also unsure about these names) 
@@ -62,7 +64,7 @@ Some property becomes true or false in the infinite limit which is not false or
 
 The reason I doubt this distinction is that I feel like it's a question of framing. A very important question, which I should investigate, but not a distinction of kind per se.
 
-#### Logical/transcendental contradiction vs a physical/intuitive contradiction.
+#### Logical/mathematical contradiction vs a physical/intuitive contradiction.
 
 Strevens uses the example of the infinite population idealization in evolutionary biology to exemplify the former: the main problem is that for an infinite population it is no longer possible to have countable additivity with a uniform distribution, and so you cannot use the Strong Law of Large Numbers and could not say anything about the probability of genetic drift (might be badly paraphrasing): the method itself is no longer useful, but it's not a direct self-contradiction as the infinite sphere, as an infinite population is a sensible concept. The latter is a bit more vague, but here I mean e.g. the thermodynamic limit: it does not work because it stipulates an infinite number of particles. However, this is in conflict with the whole idea that the world consists of molecules. BUT not directly so, as [@Shech2013] points out, it is only a real paradox if we stipulate that statistical mechanics in the thermodynamic limit is a true/accurate representation of the world, which we need to justify by e.g. (or i.e.? I don't know of any others) an indispensability argument.
 
@@ -93,4 +95,7 @@ I think the order is best explained by this beautiful diagram, the entire box be
 ![](../../media/idealization_distinctions.png)
 
 
+
+
+
 [^1]: (I am not sure whether idealizations can be split up neatly into two disjoint sets like these (I'm not sure if that can be done at all, see [@WEBER2010]), but i'll just treat it like it does)  

Chapters/III. Anyons/1. Why Anyons?.md

@@ -4,20 +4,24 @@ tags:
 ---
 
 The main subject of discussion here will be a new class of (quasi-)particles:
-anyons. In undergraduate courses, or, if you're lucky, highschool, we learn that two types of particles exist: fermions and bosons. These particles are distinguished by spin, half-integer and integer spin respectively. Anyons, as their name suggests, break this binary and are allowed _any_ type of spin, creating a whole new category of particle.[^1] While anyons are fascinating in their own right, we are interested in them because, according to the canon explanation, anyons are two-dimensional particles. More suggestively, the space they occupy cannot be _approximately_ $2D$, such as a $3D$ space of $1nm$ height, but _exactly_ two dimensional: a clear case of an infinite(simal) idealization. Of course, anyons would be just another plaything, were it not that, at the time of writing, anyons have rather strong empirical backing [@Bartolomei2020].
+anyons. In undergraduate courses, or, if you're lucky, highschool, we learn that two types of particles exist: fermions and bosons. These particles are distinguished by spin, half-integer and integer spin respectively. Anyons, as their name suggests, break this binary and are allowed _any_ type of spin, creating a whole new category of particle.[^1] While anyons are fascinating in their own right, we are interested in them because, according to the canonical explanation, anyons are two-dimensional particles. Phrased more suggestively, the space anyons occupy cannot be _approximately_ $2D$, such as a $3D$ space of $1nm$ height, but _exactly_ two dimensional: a clear case of an infinite(simal) idealization. Of course, we would not be talking about anyons were it not that, at the time of writing, anyons have rather strong empirical backing [@Bartolomei2020].
 
-Another reason why anyons present such an interesting case, is that their explanation explicitly requires _topological_ arguments. Topological arguments, as I will show, show up in unexpected places and allow problematic idealizations to sneak in, as they smooth out many of the difficult to solve geometry. By tackling such an explicit use of topology in an infinite idealization, we will be able to use the argumentative structure in our general analysis of infinite idealizations. `The opposite of topology is geometry`
+Another reason why anyons present such an interesting case is that their explanation explicitly requires _topological_ arguments. Topological arguments, as I will show, show up in unexpected places and allow problematic idealizations to sneak in, as they smooth out many of the difficult to solve geometry. By tackling such an explicit use of topology in an infinite idealization, we will be able to use the argumentative structure in our general analysis of infinite idealizations. `The opposite of topology is geometry`
 
 ## What are we going to do
 
-The following chapter will consist of four sections. In section 2, we will first attempt to understand what anyons are and why they are commonly thought of as a uniquely 2D phenomenon. The most important feature turns out to be how to define_path-uniqueness_, which is commonly defined either topologically or geometrically, the latter being the focus of section 3. To understand the topological notion of path-uniqueness (homotopy) we will examine how this works in 3D and then in 2D. Using a toy model we show that anyons are not a uniquely 2D phenomenon by constructing a non-simply connected 3D space using somewhat plausible assumptions.
+The following chapter will consist of four sections. In section 2, we will first attempt to understand what anyons are and why they are commonly thought of as a uniquely 2D phenomenon. The most important feature turns out to be how to define _path-uniqueness_, which is commonly defined either topologically or geometrically, the latter being the focus of section 3. To understand the topological notion of path-uniqueness (homotopy) we will first examine a more simple 3D case before diving into the actual 2D one. Using a toy model we show that anyons are not a uniquely 2D phenomenon by constructing a [[Simply Connected | multiply connected]] 3D space using somewhat plausible physical assumptions.
 
-After working through the problem topologically and gaining a thorough understanding of the conceptual difficulties that come with it, we turn our gaze to how path uniqueness is construed using the geometry of the space. One of the downside of the topological account is that it provides no way of calculating the specific phase of a particle, only stating that in 2D such phase could arise, so a geometric account would be welcome. It turns out that said geometry account (the so-called Berry-Phase) relies, unsurprisingly, heavily on the physical features of the system, making it difficult to reason about the possibily of a geometric explanation of anyons in the abstract. We therefore turn to a physical system which purportedly produces anyons: the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE).
+After working through the problem topologically, we turn our gaze to how path uniqueness is construed using the geometry of the space. One of the downsides of the topological explanation of anyons is that it is just that: an argument for *why* anyons show up in 2D. The topogical account does help us actually calculate the spin of particles in any real physical system, whereas a more specific geometric account could. It turns out that said geometric account (the so-called Berry-Phase) relies heavily on the physical features of the system, making it difficult to construct and evaluate a generic geometric explanation of anyons. We therefore examine a physical system which purportedly produces anyons in order to compare the explanatory power of the topological and geometric explanations: the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE).
+
+In section 4 we work through the FQHE, showing why anyons are involved and, importantly, what idealizations play a role in the explanation of the effect. Before doing so, we recap how particles contained in magnetic fields `get` quantized energy levels (Landau levels) and the basics of the simpler variant of the FQHE, the Integer Quantum Hall Effect (IQHE). These can be skipped by the impatient reader, as while some specifics of the IQHE carry over to the FQHE, most of the conceptual basis is retained, which is recapped at the end of section 3.XXX
+
+{/** TODO: Rewrite end of introduction to be accurate with the actual plan of chapter 2 
+    * I wrote the intro of chapter III so long ago i don’t even know if it’s accurate anymore
+    * labels: III 
+    * milestones: 
+    */} 
 
-In section 4 we work through the FQHE, showing why anyons are involved and,
-importantly, what idealization play a role in constructing the wave-function.
-Before doing so, we recap how particles contained in magnetic fields `get`
-quantized energylevels (Landau levels) and the basics of the simpler variant of the FQHE, the Integer Quantum Hall effect. These can be skipped by the impatient reader, as while some specifics of the IQHE carry over to the FQHE, mostly the conceptual basis is required, which is recapped at the end of section 3.XXX
 
 Finally, we put all the pieces together in section 5, and see that while a geometric explanation _could_ be possible, it is not, at the moment, feasible. Later, in chapter `XXX`, I will argue if and why such a potential explanation should still be preferred to the topological account, but such conclusion cannot be drawn until we have gained a more thorough understanding of what a good explanation is in the first place.
 

Literature Notes/Norton (2012) - Approximation and idealization Why the difference matters.md

@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ year: 2012
 DOI: 10.1086/664746
 ISSN: 00318248
 keywords: approximation, explanation, idealization, thermodynamic_limit, thermodynamics
+"annotation-target": file:///Users/thomas/OneDrive/Papers/Academic/NortonJ_2012_Approximation_and_idealization.pdf
 ---
 
 # Norton (2012) - Approximation and idealization Why the difference matters

Literature Notes/Strevens (2019) - The structure of asymptotic idealization.md

@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ year: 2019
 DOI: 10.1007/s11229-017-1646-y
 ISSN: 1573-0964
 keywords: explanation, idealization, philphys
+"annotation-target": file:///Users/thomas/OneDrive/Papers/Academic/StrevensM_2019_The_structure_of_asymptotic_idealization.pdf
 ---
 
 
@@ -129,3 +130,48 @@ in short: limit happens
 I think people should make it very clear at the start of a work where they attempt to lay down some sort of definition how normative they take this definition to be. It's very easy to take people to say "this is how it is" or "this is how you should use it", when they want to say "this is how people could be using it sensibly"
 
 > *“7 Conclusion”* [(Strevens, 2019, p. 1730)](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/3T6DFSVS?page=18&annotation=5C2FKY49)
+
+
+
+>%%
+>```annotation-json
+>{"created":"2022-10-04T12:29:37.252Z","text":"He's so fucking hawt","updated":"2022-10-04T12:29:37.252Z","document":{"title":"The structure of asymptotic idealization","link":[{"href":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"}],"documentFingerprint":"330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"},"uri":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","target":[{"source":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","selector":[{"type":"TextPositionSelector","start":3048,"end":3290},{"type":"TextQuoteSelector","exact":"I will lay out a straightforward characterization of the rules that apply to the non-infinitary cases—the rules of what I will call “simple idealization”—and then askwhether such rules can be used to deal with every case involving infinities.","prefix":" to justify that assertion here.","suffix":" The answeris that they can cope"}]}]}
+>```
+>%%
+>*%%PREFIX%%to justify that assertion here.%%HIGHLIGHT%% ==I will lay out a straightforward characterization of the rules that apply to the non-infinitary cases—the rules of what I will call “simple idealization”—and then askwhether such rules can be used to deal with every case involving infinities.== %%POSTFIX%%The answeris that they can cope*
+>%%LINK%%[[#^ac7chgqe3o|show annotation]]
+>%%COMMENT%%
+>He's so fucking hawt
+>%%TAGS%%
+>
+^ac7chgqe3o
+
+asotenashot
+
+
+>%%
+>```annotation-json
+>{"created":"2022-10-05T10:18:07.042Z","updated":"2022-10-05T10:18:07.042Z","document":{"title":"The structure of asymptotic idealization","link":[{"href":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"}],"documentFingerprint":"330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"},"uri":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","target":[{"source":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","selector":[{"type":"TextPositionSelector","start":53214,"end":53907},{"type":"TextQuoteSelector","exact":"Asymptotic extrapolation from a realistic model requires:1. An extrapolation parameter, that is, a parameter in the model which in the intendedidealization goes to zero or infinity or some other extreme value,2. A template for an extrapolation model, which is derived from the realistic modelby assigning a fixed value to the extrapolation parameter and removing all repre-sentation of that parameter from the model while retaining the model’s ability torepresent behavior relevant to the explanatory task, and3. An extrapolation space, which provides the mathematical structure for finding thelimiting form of the extrapolation models as the extrapolation parameter tends tothe extreme value.","prefix":"nthese (2019) 196:1713–1731 1729","suffix":"The idealized model is the limit"}]}]}
+>```
+>%%
+>*%%PREFIX%%nthese (2019) 196:1713–1731 1729%%HIGHLIGHT%% ==Asymptotic extrapolation from a realistic model requires:1. An extrapolation parameter, that is, a parameter in the model which in the intendedidealization goes to zero or infinity or some other extreme value,2. A template for an extrapolation model, which is derived from the realistic modelby assigning a fixed value to the extrapolation parameter and removing all repre-sentation of that parameter from the model while retaining the model’s ability torepresent behavior relevant to the explanatory task, and3. An extrapolation space, which provides the mathematical structure for finding thelimiting form of the extrapolation models as the extrapolation parameter tends tothe extreme value.== %%POSTFIX%%The idealized model is the limit*
+>%%LINK%%[[#^6jba39herrx|show annotation]]
+>%%COMMENT%%
+>
+>%%TAGS%%
+>
+^6jba39herrx
+
+
+>%%
+>```annotation-json
+>{"created":"2022-10-05T10:20:48.281Z","updated":"2022-10-05T10:20:48.281Z","document":{"title":"The structure of asymptotic idealization","link":[{"href":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"}],"documentFingerprint":"330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"},"uri":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","target":[{"source":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","selector":[{"type":"TextPositionSelector","start":59098,"end":59288},{"type":"TextQuoteSelector","exact":"It would be noble and fitting at this point to return to Batterman’s more complexcases of asymptotic idealization in physics, to see whether they can be regarded asasymptotic extrapolations.","prefix":"ite straightforward.7 Conclusion","suffix":" That is, however, more than can"}]}]}
+>```
+>%%
+>*%%PREFIX%%ite straightforward.7 Conclusion%%HIGHLIGHT%% ==It would be noble and fitting at this point to return to Batterman’s more complexcases of asymptotic idealization in physics, to see whether they can be regarded asasymptotic extrapolations.== %%POSTFIX%%That is, however, more than can*
+>%%LINK%%[[#^gutsp3cwru|show annotation]]
+>%%COMMENT%%
+>
+>%%TAGS%%
+>
+^gutsp3cwru

Streams/04-10-2022.md

@@ -1,10 +1,18 @@
 
 # TODO
 - Go over the arguments for why multiply connectedness leads to anyons leads to FQHE
--
 
 # General notes
 - The FQHE is, in a way, way “simpler” to analyze than the thermodynamic limit, because in the thermodynamic limit you deal with 2 parameters that are connected in a complicated way: the temperature & the density of particles. You do not vary the density of particles when doing an experiment, you vary the temperature. But, the temperature is not the parameter you would vary in a sorites thingy, plus phase transitions don’t really happen *at* a temperature, they happen *over* it.
 - The only way for the FQHE/ballspace example to look like a sorites paradox is to either
 	- Make some brigde between theory and observation, because there *is* a nonzero length at which FQHE happens
-	- OR QM weirdness at the boundary point, which could count as vagueness.
+	- OR QM weirdness at the boundary point, which could count as vagueness.
+
+# What did we do?
+
+We compared infinite idealizations to Sorites style paradoxes, and found that they have less in common than we hoped, in a specific way.
+Namely, Sorites style paradoxes require two boundary points and require you to “be able to go over the boundary points”. Most infinite idealizations however don’t have that, because the boundary “point” is “at” infinity, and you can’t go there, much less go over it.
+
+However, ballspace might work.
+
+Could probably generalize this in the language that [[Strevens (2019) - The structure of asymptotic idealization]] uses about idealizations.

Streams/2022-10-05 🔴TOPOLOGY TUESDAYS ♾️RISE N GRIND♾️HOT NOTE TAKING ACTION🔴.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# what done
+
+- I can use [@Strevens2019, p. 1729] to argue for the middle point of ballspace 

something.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+"annotation-target": file:///Users/thomas/OneDrive/Papers/Academic/StrevensM_2019_The_structure_of_asymptotic_idealization.pdf
+---
+
+
+
+>%%
+>```annotation-json
+>{"created":"2022-10-04T12:36:24.776Z","text":"tashtasht","updated":"2022-10-04T12:36:24.776Z","document":{"title":"The structure of asymptotic idealization","link":[{"href":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"}],"documentFingerprint":"330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4"},"uri":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","target":[{"source":"urn:x-pdf:330881738ef411c18ab881fb1c2d0ad4","selector":[{"type":"TextPositionSelector","start":333,"end":636},{"type":"TextQuoteSelector","exact":"Robert Batterman and others have argued that certain idealizing explana-tionshaveanasymptoticform:theyaccountforastateofaffairsorbehaviorbyshowingthat it emerges “in the limit”. Asymptotic idealizations are interesting in many ways,but is there anything special about them as idealizations? To understan","prefix":"of Springer Nature 2017Abstract ","suffix":"d their role inscience, must we "}]}]}
+>```
+>%%
+>*%%PREFIX%%of Springer Nature 2017Abstract%%HIGHLIGHT%% ==Robert Batterman and others have argued that certain idealizing explana-tionshaveanasymptoticform:theyaccountforastateofaffairsorbehaviorbyshowingthat it emerges “in the limit”. Asymptotic idealizations are interesting in many ways,but is there anything special about them as idealizations? To understan== %%POSTFIX%%d their role inscience, must we*
+>%%LINK%%[[#^mvov9tnwk8p|show annotation]]
+>%%COMMENT%%
+>tashtasht
+>%%TAGS%%
+>#robbyyyyy
+^mvov9tnwk8p
+
+
+still looking bad