Hong Joo Ryoo is a rising second-year PhD student pursuing Physics and Philosophy through Johns Hopkins University’s Interdisciplinary Humanistic Studies (IHS) program. His recent work, supported by the National Science Foundation (Graduate Fellowship) and Anthropic (AI for Science), spans theoretical physics, artificial intelligence, and the philosophical and mathematical foundations thereof.
You’re the first to do Physics and Philosophy through Hopkins’s IHS program—how did that happen, and what draws you to that intersection?
I was originally admitted as a Physics PhD student, planning to pursue an MA in Philosophy concurrently. My advisor, Sean (Carroll), recommended IHS instead. I was told it was basically double-majoring in grad school, and soon after I signed up to be the guinea pig across the Department of Physics & Astronomy and the Department of Philosophy. I’ve always been interested in the foundations of physics, with plenty of side interests in the philosophy of science, so it was a perfect opportunity. This program is especially freeing because I can do cross-disciplinary research without a single department dictating the shape of my questions.
What are you working on right now?
I am working on a wide range of projects, each at varying stages.
I spend most of my time nowadays working in the foundations of physics with Sean Carroll, focusing on the algebraic formulation of modern quantum theories. We are working on a pedagogical piece on this topic (stay tuned!), while investigating the minimal ingredients required to specify a quantum theory. In other words, we are asking what defines a quantum theory. Do we need to assume a separate “algebra of observables,” or could this be inferred from the spectrum of the Hamiltonian? What about locality?
I am also continuing work on the GRACE artificial intelligence agent for particle physics experiments. It is the first agentic system to autonomously run particle physics simulations and execute designs, and we are in the midst of implementing new quality engineering techniques commonly seen in industrial settings to improve our performance. I am also thinking about the role of artificial intelligence in declaring new results in physics. This, of course, involves looking at the epistemology of experiment, as well as modern artificial intelligence capabilities.
Finally, I am working toward extending my previous work on explanation in foundational physics. I am currently tackling the following set of questions with varying success: is there a general notion of incomplete laws that one often draws upon within an explanation when formulating a so-called similarity space? Could explanation by constraint be domain relative, and is there a unified way of thinking of constraints that exist across domains (e.g. conservation of energy, information, etc.)? What is the logic of explanation? Should scientific explanation be hyperintensional? If so, then what are we to say about physical dualities? Does this put us in a position to choose one side of the duality? How is one to do so given current progress in fundamental physics? Does a successful explanation at every emergent ‘level’ warrant ontological commitment? What counts as a ‘complete’ explanation? How should explanation be carried out under the usual cognitive instability problems of physics?
What do you like to do outside work?
I’m almost at a ranked ticket in Clash Royale, and I’m working toward the Electro League in Clash of Clans. I play most of the trending Supercell games and unfortunately find myself enjoying every second. I also play my fair share of sports involving a ball, and I usually won’t say no to a wrestle or grapple.
If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future, or anything else, what would you want to know?
Who wouldn’t say a theory of everything? As selfish as it is, I don’t think I’d ask anything philosophical. There’s a joy in chasing truth, and a theory of everything would be a huge technical step toward all the fun interpretive debates. I’d also want to ask why I don’t like to eat seafood anymore.
What would your childhood self say if someone told you that you would grow up to be a philosopher?
Probably something like “as long as you’re happy.” Honestly, my younger self wouldn’t have blinked. I grew up between Korea and the US, constantly blending things, from fusion food to mixing cultures back and forth, so a life spent connecting different ways of thinking would have felt completely natural. I just wouldn’t have had the word “philosopher” for it yet.
This section of the APA Blog is designed to get to know our fellow philosophers a little better. We’re including profiles of APA members that spotlight what captures their interest, not only inside the office, but also outside of it. We’d love for you to be a part of it, so please contact us via the interview nomination form.
Smrutipriya Pattnaik
Smrutipriya Pattnaik is the Teaching Beat Editor and Series Editor for the Syllabus Showcase Series at the APA Blog. She is an adjunct assistant professor at Santa Fe College in Gainesville, Florida and holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Indian Institute of Technology Indore. Her research focuses on utopian imagination and political thought in the context of modern crises. She is currently working on her first book, Politics, Utopia, and Social Imagination.
