David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
If we want to say what “fundamentality” means, we have to start by approaching what we generally see at the empty place of the predicate “____ is fundamental”. We generally talk about fundamental entities and fundamental theories. At this article, I tried to make a metaphysical approach of what is for something to be fundamental, and I also tried to talk a little bit of fundamental incomplete and complete theories. To do that, I start stating the notion of “entity” and looking at the difference at perceived entities. The difference led us to talk about the entities’ structures and their powers, and about the supervenience between these last two. The supervenience talk made us to see the fight between emergentism and reductionism as the difference between the irreducibility of laws and the reducibility of powers and structures to lower-order domains. Then, we conclude that “fundamentality” is a mereological relation – a relation that a whole structure has to a certain combination of its structural parts or that a power has to a certain combination of its constituent powers – of to be identical and to exist in virtue of them.
|Keywords||Mereology Fundamentality Reduction Emergence Supervenience|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Mariam Thalos (2010). Two Conceptions of Fundamentality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (2):151-177.
Sydney Shoemaker (2002). Kim on Emergence. Philosophical Studies 58 (1-2):53-63.
Jeremy Butterfield (2011). Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape. [REVIEW] Foundations of Physics 41 (6):920-959.
Brian P. McLaughlin (1995). Varieties of Supervenience. In Elias E. Savellos & U. Yalcin (eds.), Supervenience: New Essays. Cambridge University Press. 16--59.
Bradford Petrie (1987). Global Supervenience and Reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (September):119-30.
Jessica M. Wilson (2005). Supervenience-Based Formulations of Physicalism. Noûs 39 (3):426-459.
Brian P. McLaughlin (1994). Varieties of Supervenience. In Elias E. Savellos & Ümit D. Yalçin (eds.), Savellos, E.; Yalchin, O. (Eds.) Supervenience. Cambridge University Press. 16--59.
Terence E. Horgan (1993). From Supervenience to Superdupervenience: Meeting the Demands of a Material World. Mind 102 (408):555-86.
Harold W. Noonan (1987). Supervenience. Philosophical Quarterly 37 (January):78-85.
Daniel A. Bonevac (1988). Supervenience and Ontology. American Philosophical Quarterly 25 (January):37-47.
Alexander Rueger (2000). Robust Supervenience and Emergence. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):466-491.
Jaegwon Kim (1984). Concepts of Supervenience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45 (December):153-76.
Robert Stalnaker (1996). Varieties of Supervenience. Philosophical Perspectives 10:221-42.
Jaegwon Kim (1978). Supervenience and Nomological Incommensurables. American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (April):149-56.
Added to index2011-02-21
Total downloads265 ( #2,115 of 1,679,326 )
Recent downloads (6 months)55 ( #1,691 of 1,679,326 )
How can I increase my downloads?