BSPS2013AcceptedPaperswithAbstractsCharlotte Werndl. Justifying Typicality Measures of Boltzmannian StatisticalMechanics and Dynamical SystemsAbstract: An important question in the foundations of Boltzmannian statisticalmechanics is how to interpret the measure defined over the possible states of a gas. Arecent popular proposal is to interpret it as a typicality measure: it represents therelative size of sets of states, and typical states show a certain property if the measureof the set that corresponds to this property is close to one. That is, a typicality measurecounts states and does not represent the probability of finding a system in a certainstate.However, a justification is missing why the standard measure in statistical mechanics isthe correct typicality measure. Also for dynamical systems an interpretation needs to befound for the measures used, and one suggestion is to interpret them as typicalitymeasures. Here again the question arises how to justify particular choices of measures,and this question has hardly been addressed. This paper attempts to fill this gap.First, the paper criticises Pitowsky (2012) – the only justification of typicality measuresknown to the author. Pitowsky's argues as follows. Consider the set S of all infinitesequences of zeros and ones. By approximation with the measures defined on the sets offinite sequences of zeros and ones, a unique measure m can be defined on S. Let f bethe map which assigns to each infinite sequence s of zeros and ones the number in theunit interval whose binary development is s. When f is used to map the measure m on Sto a measure on the unit interval, one obtains the uniform measure. Hence the uniformmeasure is the correct typicality measure. This paper argues that Pitowsky's argument isuntenable. It is unclear why f and not another function is used to map the measure m tothe unit interval. Furthermore, there are counterexamples: for many systems on the unitinterval the standard measure is not the uniform measure.Then a new justification of typicality measures is advanced. It is natural to require thattypicality measures should be invariant. Furthermore, assume that gases are epsilonergodic.A major argument of the paper is that a theorem by Vranas (1998) intended fora different purpose can be used to justify typicality measures. This theorem says that,for epsilon-ergodic systems, any measure which is invariant and translation-closeapproximately equals the standard measure (translation-closeness is the condition thatthe measure of a slightly displaced set only changes slightly). Hence, if translationclosenesscan be justified, the standard measure can be regarded as the correcttypicality measure.The crucial remaining question is how to justify translation-closeness of typicalitymeasures. This paper argues that a justification based on Vranas (1998) fails becausethere are irresolvable technical problems. Then a new justification is proposed: becauseslightly displaced sets cannot be distinguished by measurements, it is reasonable torequire that the typicality measure of a slightly displaced set only changes slightly.Consequently, the standard measures of statistical mechanics and dynamical systemscan by justified as typicality measures.Mirko Farina. Re-Thinking Neuroconstructivism through Dynamic (Neuro)-EnskilmentAbstract: In this paper I discuss two views - standard neuroconstructivism, anddynamic neuro-enskilment - that explain human cognitive and cortical development fromdifferent standpoints. I then compare these views and critically analyse the linksbetween them. I do so to demonstrate that standard neuroconstructivism, in order to