Graduate studies at Western
Foundations of Physics 41 (6):920-959 (2011)
|Abstract||This is one of two papers about emergence, reduction and supervenience. It expounds these notions and analyses the general relations between them. The companion paper analyses the situation in physics, especially limiting relations between physical theories.I shall take emergence as behaviour that is novel and robust relative to some comparison class. I shall take reduction as deduction using appropriate auxiliary definitions. And I shall take supervenience as a weakening of reduction, viz. to allow infinitely long definitions.The overall claim of this paper will be that emergence is logically independent both of reduction and of supervenience. In particular, one can have emergence with reduction, as well as without it; and emergence without supervenience, as well as with it.Of the subsidiary claims, the four main ones (each shared with some other authors) are: I defend the traditional Nagelian conception of reduction (Sect. 3);I deny that the multiple realisability argument causes trouble for reductions, or “reductionism” (Sect. 4);I stress the collapse of supervenience into deduction via Beth’s theorem (Sect. 5.1);I adapt some examples already in the literature to show supervenience without emergence and vice versa (Sect. 5.2)|
|Keywords||Emergence Reduction Definitional extension Nagel Supervenience Multiple realisability Beth’s theorem|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jaegwon Kim (2003). Supervenience, Emergence, Realization, Reduction. In Michael J. Loux & Dean W. Zimmerman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
Terence E. Horgan (1993). From Supervenience to Superdupervenience: Meeting the Demands of a Material World. Mind 102 (408):555-86.
Ansgar Beckermann (1992). Supervenience, Emergence, and Reduction. In Ansgar Beckermann, Hans Flohr & Jaegwon Kim (eds.), Emergence or Reduction?: Prospects for Nonreductive Physicalism. De Gruyter.
Bradford Petrie (1987). Global Supervenience and Reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (September):119-30.
Daniel A. Bonevac (1988). Supervenience and Ontology. American Philosophical Quarterly 25 (January):37-47.
Jaegwon Kim (1984). Concepts of Supervenience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45 (December):153-76.
Brian P. McLaughlin (1995). Varieties of Supervenience. In Elias E. Savellos & U. Yalcin (eds.), Supervenience: New Essays. Cambridge University Press.
Paul W. Humphreys (1997). Emergence, Not Supervenience. Philosophy of Science Supplement 64 (4):337-45.
Brian P. McLaughlin (1994). Varieties of Supervenience. In Savellos, E.; Yalchin, O. (Eds.) Supervenience.
Alexander Rueger (2000). Robust Supervenience and Emergence. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):466-491.
Harald Atmanspacher (2006). Contextual Emergence in the Description of Properties. Foundations of Physics 36 (12):1753-1777.
James van Cleve (1990). Mind-Dust or Magic? Panpsychism Versus Emergence. Philosophical Perspectives 4:215-226.
James van Cleve (1990). Mind -- Dust or Magic? Panpsychism Versus Emergence. Philosophical Perspectives 4:215-226.
Robert C. Bishop & Harald Atmanspacher (2006). Contextual Emergence in the Description of Properties. Foundations of Physics 36 (12):1753-1777.
Added to index2010-09-18
Total downloads122 ( #5,289 of 731,339 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #10,827 of 731,339 )
How can I increase my downloads?