Emergence, not supervenience
Philosophy of Science Supplement 64 (4):337-45 (1997)
| Abstract | I argue that supervenience is an inadequate device for representing relations between different levels of phenomena. I then provide six criteria that emergent phenomena seem to satisfy. Using examples drawn from macroscopic physics, I suggest that such emergent features may well be quite common in the physical realm | |||||||||
| Keywords | Emergence Model Reductionism Science Supervenience | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAndreas Hüttemanna & Orestis Terzidis (2000). Emergence in Physics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (3):267-281.
Andreas Hüttemanna & Orestis Terzidis (2000). Emergence in Physics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (3):267 – 281.
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.
Sydney Shoemaker (2002). Kim on Emergence. Philosophical Studies 58 (1-2):53-63.
Gregory R. Peterson (2002). Emergence and Supervenience. Tradition and Discovery 29 (3):23-27.
Terence E. Horgan (1993). From Supervenience to Superdupervenience: Meeting the Demands of a Material World. Mind 102 (408):555-86.
Alexander Rueger (2000). Robust Supervenience and Emergence. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):466-491.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads110 ( #5,007 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #7,667 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
