Essays in the Philosophy of Chemistry Edited by ERIC SCERRI AND GRANT FISHER OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRES S Introduction 7 ERIC SCERRI AND GRANT FISHER The chapter by Joseph E. Earley Sr. (chap. 10) can only be described as a tour de force in every sense of the term. Earley's writing, perhaps more than that of any other currently active author, displays a complete mastery of both the phil- osophical and the chemical literature. Nothing that could be said briefly here would do justice to his essay, which ranges across a diverse set of topics in- cluding the nature of substance, properties and relations, bundles, molecular properties, onticity, wholes and parts and much more. CHAPTER 10 / How Properties Hold Together in Substances TOSEPH E. EARLEY, SR. 1 What Has Chemistry to Do with Philosophy? A main aim of chemical research is to understand how the characteristic proper- ties of specific chemical substances relate to the composition and to the strncture of those materials. Such investigations assume a broad consensus regarding basic aspects of chemistry. Philosophers generally regard widespread agreement on basic. principles as a remote goal, not something already achieved. They do not agree on how properties stay together in ordinary objects. Some follow John Locke [1632-1704] and maintain that properties of entities inhere in substrates. The item that this approach considers to underlie characteristics is often called "a bare particular" (Sider 2006). However, others reject this understanding and hold that substances are bundles of properties-an approach advocated by David Hume [r7rr-1776J. Some supporters of Hume's theory hold that entities are collec- tions of"tropes" (property-instances) held together in a "compresence relation- ship" (Simons 1994). Recently several authors have pointed out the importance of "structures" for the coherence of substances, but serious questions have been raised about those proposals. Philosophers generally use a time-independent (synchronic} approach and do not consider how chemists understand proper- ties of chemical substances and of dynamic networks of chemical reactions. This chapter aims to clarify how current chemical understanding relates to aspects of contemporary philosophy. The first section introduces philosophical debates, the second considers properties of chemical systems, the third part deals with theories of wholes and parts, the fourth segment argues that closure grounds properties of coherences, the fifth section introduces structural realism (SR}, the sixth part considers contextual emergence and concludes that dynamic structures of processes may qualify as determinants ("causes") of specific out- comes, and the final section suggests that ordinary items are based on closure of relationships among constituents additionally determined by selection for integration into more-extensive coherences. \ 1.1 Substances Ruth Garrett Millikan discussed the concept of substance in philosophy: Substances . are whatever one can learn from given only one or a few encounters, various skills or information that will appiy to other encounters,. . Further,this possibility must be grounded in some kind of natural necessity,.. .The function of a substance concept is to make possible this sort of learning and use ofknowledge for a specific substance, Substances necessarily persist through time and thus are distinguished fromevents. Chemists, however, define chemical substances as materials of constant composition and definite properties-and also consider all systems tobe composed of smaller items. They hold that macroscopic samples are madeup of molecules and that molecules have atomic nuclei and electrons as components. All of these bits are in incessant motion, and in continual interaction with other items. The long-term stability of composite chemical entitiesimplies that internal motions are somehow constrained so that the compositesretain integrity over time and through interaction. Paul Weiss described thissituation in terms of the philosophers' concept of substance: Each actuality is a substance. It maintains a hold on whatever it contains, produces, and intrudes upon. It persists and it acts. It has an irreducible, independent core, and receives determinaons from insistent, intrusive forces... . If anactuality were not a substance, its parts would not belong to it, and it would disperse itself in the very act of making its presence evident. The very items whichit dominates, it would not control; nor would it continue 10 be despite an involvement in change and motion. It would be inert and solely in itself or it would bea mere event. In either case, it would not be a source of action. The well-established dynamic aspect of nature requires attention to how proper-ties of chemical entities are maintained through time, and how they maintainintegrity during interaction. Failure to consider factors involving time (use ofsynchronic rather than diachronic approaches) is not acceptable (Humphrys2008, '997; Earley 2o12b). 1.2 Properties and Relations Natural human languages funchon as f all items fall into one or the other oftwo great classes: subjects (substances, particulars, or individuals) and predicates (attributes or universals-including properties and relations). Aristotle'searly definition: "A substance. . . is that which is neither said ofa subject nor (is]in a subject" (Categories , (, 13-14), Barnes 1984, 4) is similar to BertrandRussell's characterization: "An 'individual' is anything that can be the subjectof an atomic proposition" (Russell's "Introduction" in Whitehead and Russell1970, xix). Russell considered that whatever can be ily asserted concerning an individ ual (any predicate whatsoever) is a property (attribute) of that particular. Hila Putnam (1969) pointed out that philosophers who use such broad understand ings often run into difficulties that use of narrower properrconce?ts would avoid. D. H. Mellor (2006) conceded real existence only to those properties and relations that science discovers to be involved in causal laws and argued that many generallyaccePt properties (including redness) do not exist- because any causal rerlarity can be dealt with without recognizing them. Chemists generally use a restricted notion of property which was described by American chemist and philosopher Charles S. Peirce 1839_i9i4j_that is, a prope is how a thing behaves, or would behave, in a specified operation (CP 8.o8).' This usage exemplifies Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim: "Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object" (CP 5.402). We follow the usual practice of chemists and use Peirce's concept of property. Properties filling either Mellor's or Peirce's property-concePts (including pow ers, capacitieS rnlnerabilities, and affordances) are classed as dispositional prop erties. NondispOsiti0n properties are designated as categorial or substantive properties. Intrinsic properties are distinguished from stntctu rat properties features of entities that depend on relationship(s). Relations involve two or more individuals as retata. Some claim that many-place (polyadic) relations can be reduced to single-place (monadic) properties. But Russell argued that un'm metrical relations such as greater than cannot be reduced to monadic properties. In the mid twentieth centu'r some held that all problems could be under stood in terms of noncomPo5ite entities (elementa particles) with intrinsic properties. An alternative view is that every apparentlyintrmflsic prope derives from interaction of less extensive components-as the mass of the proton mainly arises from the combination of its three component quarks, not from their intrinsic masses (Dun, Fodor, ison,Hoelbliflg, Hoffmann, Katz, et al. zooS). On the former view, intrinsic properties are prima and stt,cthral (relational) properties secondary: on the alternative basis structural properties are fundamental. 1.3 AlternativeS to the SubstanceAttribute Approach Alfred North Whitehead held that: "All modern philosophy hinges round the difficulty of describing the world in terms of subject and predicate substance and quality, particular and universal" (Whitehead 1978,49). Whitehead rejected Locke's category of substance and asserted: "Actual entities'-also termed 'ac tual occasions-are the final real things of which the world is made up" (18). Process for Whitehead is all of a single sort_self-creation of actual occasions. • Paragraph zo8 of volume $ of the electronic version of The Collected Papers of Charlei Sanders Pierce. Fuer citations to this work will fol1o this style. (MILUKAN 2000,33) (WEIss t959, 109) 200 Metaphysical Issues HOW PRoPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN SUBSTANcES 201 'Actual entities perish, but do not change; they are what they are" (35). ActualOCCasions are not substances_they come to be and, in so doing, perish.Donald W Mertz (1996, 2003) avoids the substance-prope distinction ina different way. Mertz's "Instance Ontology" operates with a single ontologicalcategory-called property instance, state of affairs, or fact of relationship Byrecognition of intensiontypes (universals), Mertz's approach qualifies as realism,Each state of affairs corresponds to unification of its relata, Gilbert Simondonrecommended that we should "seek to know the Individual through individua.tion rather than individuation through the individual" (Simondon 1964, 22).iitehead made the achievenjnt of indMdualitr by each actual occasion a focusof his system. Mertz does not deal with the process of individuatio;i 1.4 SubstrateBundle Debates Locke admthed that the concept of substratum was "only a supposition of heknows not what support" of properties (1690, chapter XXIII, section 2): in anAppend to his Treatise, Hume (1739) reported: "I am sensible, that my account is very defective.' In the end, Hume was as dissatisfied with his bundleapproach as Locke had been with his substratum theory: Present-day advocatesof either approach rarely express similar reservations. Jiri Benovslcv (2008) examined several versions ofboth substrate and bundletheories_some involving fropes and others recognizing universals, some witha single identical unificationrelation for all objects, others with variable numbers of relata olyadicity), and still others with distinct unificationrelations foreach object. Benovs considered how proponents of each of these versionsdefended against objections and concluded that both substratum and bundletheories share a common central postulate-the concept that each object has auniing feature. (This is the substrate/bare particular or the compresence relationship.) He identifies these as theoretical eutities (items "individuated by theirtheoretical role") and points out that all "play the same role in the same way" inall their applications_therefore they are "identical (metaphysically equivalent)"(183). He concludes that substratum and bundle theories are in brothers notenemies-_and that both are seriously deficient, since neither has clarified the unification that they both require. That unification remains a "something, he knowsnot what" as it was for Locke: both substrate and bundle approaches are still"very defective" as Hume found his own theory to be. 1.5 A Proposed Principle of Unity for Bundles David Robb (2005, 467) described an explicit search for a principle ofunity forproperties. A certain tennis-ball (called Alpha) figures in these discussions.Robb begins: It's hard to deny that there are natures or ways being How could there bebeing without a way of being? To be is to be some way or other. I'll cl these waysproperties.. , Ordinary objects (chairs, trees, human beings, electrons, stars) . . are merely bundles of properties. Not only must a being be some way or other. it is exhausted by ways of being. Robb holds that an object (such as Alpha) "is a unified, persisting, indepen dent being" (468) but does not examine the basis of such unity, persistence, and independence. Although lie considers that objects necessarily persist,r Robb specifically states "I will not address diachronic unity here" (476). His treatment is synchronic. Robb states: "Whether something counts as an object may for the purposes of this paper be taken as a primitive fact about it" (468). Elsewhere (Robb 2009) he expands on various aspects of notions of substanti ality-but does not propose a criterion of what unifies an object. He holds that parts of objects that are themselves objects are substantial parts: parts that are properties (rather than objects) are qualitative parts. Each object has both sub stantial and qualitative unity-_these are distinct, but "we should expect there to be some systematic relations between them such that our choice of one constrains our choice of the other" (474). Robb declines to express an opinion as to what the principle of unity of sub stantial parts might be since: "My concern here in defending the bundle theory is only with the principle ofqualitative unity" Reuses David Armstrong's concept of a structural property: "a kind of complex property, one composed of the properties of and, in most cases, relations among [an] object's parts" (476). Adding: "to say that certain substantial parts are exhaustive at a particular mereological2 level means that those parts are all of an object's parts at that mereological level" he proposes a qualitative principle of unity: (CU) F or any substantially complex object 0 and properties F and C, F and G are qualitative parts of 0 1ff F and C are both structuied on the (exhaustive) substan tial parts of 0 at some mereological level, That is to say, if an object has parts that are themselves objects, then the proper ties ofthe composite object are some combination of the properties of the parts- providing that all the parts identified at a particular mereological level are taken into account Those resultant object-properties may be regarded as parts of the object, but they are parts in a qualitative sense that is different from the usual (substantial) sense of parthood. Robb assumes that the properties of ordinary objects derive directly and exclusively from the properties of their components. The principle ofunity (CU) does not apply to simples-objects that have no substantial parts. Robb presumes that simples exist and invokes the principle that "ifno objects exist in their own rights then no objects exist at all" (485). Robb proposes: "A simple object.. .just is a single, simple property" (486) and for malizes that assertion as: (SU) for any substantially simple object 0 and properties F and C: F and G are qualitative parts of 0 if F and C are each identical with 0. 'Mereology is defined as 'the abstract study of the relations between parts and wholes" [Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume I. (1993). Oaford: Clarendon Press, 1747]. See section 3.1 of this chapter 202 Metaphysical Issues How PROPERTIES HOLD T0GErHER IN SUBSTANCES 203 Robb argues igorously that SU does not involve the category-mistake of confounding (adverbial) ways of being with (substantive) entities, but obseesthat if SU does involve a category-mistake then "it's one that bundle theoristshave been making all along' (486). 2 Properties of Chemical Systems Some characteristics of chemical systems (called molecular properties) dependmainly on the characteristics of components of those systems together withhow those constituents are connected. In contrast spectroscopic properties involve transition between energy states of entities-with concomitant emissionor absorbtion of energy. Chemical properties involve interaction of substanceswith like or different others to bring about transition to alternative compositions-thereby producing new connectivities (three-dimensional arrangements)of elemental centers ("atoms"; Bader and Matta 2013). 2.1 Molecular Properties In chemical entities, attractive forces (such as between unlike electricalcharges) pull components together; repulsive interactions (as between likecharges) drive constituents apart. As parts separate, attractive forces draw fragments together. Distances between components change continuously, but remain within limits-due to balance of attractive and repulsive interactions.Closure of relationships enables each chemical entity to retain self-identitythrough interactions. Molecules adopt the spatial configuration with lowest potential energy thatis consistent with constraints which obtain. For dihydrogen, a minimum ofpotential energy occurs at a single internuclear distance (the H-H bond-length).More-complex chemical entities are described in multidimensional configuration space. Potential-energy minima in configuration space correspond tomore or less stable molecular structures: the minimum of lowest energy is theequilibrium structure (Earley 2o;2b). Vibrations around such structures occur,and are more vigorous at higher temperature. Stability corresponds to closureof relationships among components which leads to a minimum ofpotential energyfor a specific connectivity of elemental centers. The details of each such"potential-well" determine how each system interacts, and specifies manyproperties of the coherence, Closure of relationships of components is whataccounts for the coherence of diverse properties for each molecular substance.Such closure allows each molecule to make a characteristic dfference and sohave ontological significance (Earley 2008a, Ney 2009).The factors that determine the variation of potential-energy with internuclear distance for the dihydrogen molecule are well understood. Electrostaticattraction between negatively-charged electrons and positively charged protons, mutual repulsion of like-charged electrons (and protons), the fact thatthe internal energy of atoms and molecules is restricted to certain specificvalues (quantized), and the Pauli Exclusion Principle (which limits occupany of each molecular energy-level to two electrons) are all major factors. For the ydrogen molecule, theory-based (a pnori) calculations of molecular pro perites_dissodlatton energy, equilibrium internuclear distance, rotational moment 0f jea_agree well with experimentallY eterm ed values. Approx imate calculations for more-compl molecules_usually involving parameters estimated from experiments_yield approximate predictions of characteristics of chemical molecules, even for some quite complicated ones, Properties that depend only on the mass and/or volume of molecules derive directiY from phenomena that p0flleflergy ersus_internttcar distance cuiwes describe. Certain (colligative) properties of solutions depend on the number of solute units (molecules or ions) dissolved in a given volume of sol vent, rather than on the properties of the individual molecules. Properties such as the melting temperature of a solid, the boiling temperature of a liquid the critical temperatrtre of a substance all depend on mutual interaction of mole cules of a single type. Both colligative and phasechange properties might well be grouped with molecular properties. 2,2 SpectroScoPic Properties Like electronic energies vibrational and rotational energies are quantized. possible energy-levels are separated more widely for electronic states, less widely for vibrational states, and quite narrowlY for rotational states. Transition from one energy level to another involves absorption or emission of energy. If a dihydrogen molecule (H2) absorbs a photon of appropriate energy, a transi tion from a lowerenetgY electronic level to a higherenegy electronic level would occur, Once the system was in the upper level (with a longer equilib rium-distance) vibrations and rotation could occur but sooner or later either a photon would be emitted and the molecule would relax to the lower level, or the molecule would spilt to produce energetically xcited hydrogen atomsTransitions between energy levels provide a way by which molecules interact with the rest of the world while retaining integrity (for dihydrogen, by main taining the H-H bond). Under usual conditions, some chemical coherences persist indefinitely, others have short lifetimes, and many are evanescent. ArgttablY persisting long enough to undergo rotation is the lower-limit of molecular existence (Earley 1992). The geometric structures of molecules and crystals partially determine their spectra. Details of structure can often be inferred from spectral measure ments. SpectroscoP15tudY of the energy absorbed or released when chemical systems change from one energy level to another_accounts for much of the effectiveness of modern chemical science. 2.3 Chemical Properties Chemistty turns lessvaluable materials into morevaluable items. When materi als are mixed, new substances appear and old ones vanish as component elemen tary centers rearrange. Every reaction involves a decrease in free energy-a lowering of potential for chemical reaction. Reaction continues, however HOW PROPERTI HOLD TOGETH IN SUBSTANCES 205 204 j Ivletaphysical Issues reactions continue at equal rates. Any given starting mixture conceivably could produce a variety of finalproducts. Principles governing alternative changes are easy to state: Applyingthem requires experience and skill, The two main considerations are thermodynamic stability and kinetics (speed). If all reactions occur rapidly, the finalstate will be the condition that has the lowest free energy-total energy decrease due to chemical bonding adjusted to take account of the complexity ofthe structures involved (less-complicated structures have an advantage overmore-complex ones). Every chemical change involves decrease in thermodynamic reaction-capacity of the system-reduction of free energy or chemicalpotential. Chemical reaction corresponds to transition between stable states-movement of a system from one potential-well to another, Chemical reactionscorrespond to production of new closures-every chemical process is abecoming (Earley 1998). Transition from reactant to product potential-wells necessarily involves passage through higher-energy arrangements of components which are intermethate between the configurations of the starting materials and products. Stowerrates of chemical reaction involve traversing patterns corresponding to higherpotential-energy barriers between reactant and product potential-wells: fasterreactions involve lower barriers, For instance, change from the stable cisconformation of 1,2-dichioroethane (C2H6C17) to the equally-stable tratrsconfiguration of the same molecule occurs rapidly. The corresponding reactionof i,a-dichloroethylene (C2HCl) is slower because the stronger double bondbetween carbon centers resists twisting. It is a serious error to focus only on thermodynamic factors and to ignorekinetic (reaction-rate) considerations. Most chemically interesting reactions arecontrolled by kinetic influences, so that history must be taken into accountQuite usually, the product that results from a chemical change is not the thermodynamically most stable product but some higher-free-energy form(s)(Earley 2012b). Rates of chemical reactions are usually discussed as ifintermediate "transition" states had real existence. This approach forms the basis of a myriad ofchemical explanations of widely varying sophistication. Eugene Wigner suggested that reaction-rate parameters should be computed directly from moleculardynamics, as a preferable alternative to the thermodynamics-related transition-state approach to understanding reaction rates (Jaffé, Kawai, Palacián, Yanguas,and Uzer 2005). Molecular-dynamics calculations can now compute the motionsof some tens of individual atoms during reaction. For instance, modeling ofthe isomerization of HCN to produce HNC (Ezra 2009) shows that quasi-periodic trajectories and multidimensional chaos exert significant influenceson chemical reactivity. The transition-state approach does not take account ofsuch effects: To the extent that they are important that approach may lead towrong conclusions. Tynically chemical ieactions happen through several rather distinct subprocesses which often imolve intermediates of significant stability. Such a series of steps is called a recsctlon mechanism. The reaction rate for each such mechanistic step is subject to many influences, generally different for each step. $ometimes one step will be so much slower than the others that it will mainly detefli1i1e the overall reaction rate but usually several reaction steps will be sig nificant for determining the overall rate of reaction. It sometimes happens that reaction-rates for a series of related reactions follow the trend in thermodynamic driving-force (free energy) for the same series-but there is no necessity for this to be the case. Reactions with highly favorable free-energy changes may well be slow; reactions with low thermody namic driving-force might be rapid. Which product (of the myriad possible in a paCular case) results from a mixture of reactants is usually determined by the relative rates ofmany competing reactwfls. Rarely does a collection ofstarting materials generate a single product: usually several products occur in propor tions which depend sensitively on environmental conditions. Large networks of reactions (such as occur in biochemiS, astrochemistry, or geochemistry) are governed by the relativelySimPle principles just summarized but each type of reacti0nflet\Vo has additional special features. 2.4 Relative Onticity Early in the twentieth century, a disagreement between physicists aacted at tention (Atmanspacher and Primas 2003 301). Albert Einstein held: "Physics is an attempt conceptually to grasp reality as it is thought independently of its being obsewed." In contrast, Niels Bohr warned: "it is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." it became customary to distinguish scientific statements as either ontotogicat or epmstemologicat. The former deal with how things really are: the latter concern how things appear to be. EventuallY most scientists came to assume that only the a priori calculations of quantum physics merited the on tological designation. Admixture of a posterioti considerations was considered to relegate a statement to mere epistemological status. The opinion that chem ical propositions could not attain to ontological status became widespread: this view still has adherents (e.g., Mcintyre 2007). But this clear position is subject to Putnam's objection: Once we assume that there is, somehow fixed in advance, a single 'real,' a single literal' sense of est'-and, by the way, a single 'literal' sense of identi'0ne which is cast in marble and cannot be either contracted or expanded without defiling the statue of the god, ie are tlready wandering in Cloud Cuckoo Land. (PUTNAM 2004. 84) Chemists believe that they darify the real order otkings when they provide de tailed accounts of the diverse chemical species with which they deal. But they employ a multi-level system of entities (Earley 2003b)_theY use a relative Mow PROPERTiES HOLD TOGETHER IN SUBSTANCES 207 slowly until a minimum of free energy is reached-at a condition of chemicalequilibrium-and no further net change occurs although forward and reverse ao6 Metaphysical Issues The distinction of epistemic and ontic descriptions can be applied to the entire hierarchy of (perhaps partitily overlapping) domains leading from fundamental particles in basic physics to chemistry and even to liting system in biology and psychology. Onfic and epistemic descriphons are then considered as relative to two (successive) domains in the hierarchy. . .Wlule atoms and molecules are epistemicafly' described within the domains of basic physics they acquire ontic significance within the domain of chemistry.., the central point of the concept of relative ontici is that states and properties of a system which belong to an epistemic description in a particular domain can be considered as belonging to an ontologic description from the perspective of another domain. (ATMAN5PAcHER AND P51MM 2003 31I) 3.1 Wholes and Parts According to the dictionary definition given in note 2 any theory ofwholes and parts is "a mereology." However, the specific part-whole logical system that Peter Simons (1987, 1) calls Classical Extensional Mereology (GEM) has influ enced English-speaking philosophers so deeply that that 'mereology' often refers exclusively to GEM. Three basic axioms of GEM (Lewis 1991, 74) are Transitivity: If x is part of some part of y then x is part of y. Unrestricted Compositioti: Whenever there are some things, there exists a fusion of those things. Uniqueness of Composition: It never happens that the same things have two different fusions. The first axiom is relatively non-controversial. The knob of a door in a house is a part of the house. The second axiom seems troublesome, since it gives rise to statements such as that of Willard V. Quine: "There is a physical object part of which is a silver dollar now in my pocket and the rest of which is a temporal segment of the Eiffel Tower through its third decade" (Quine 1976, 859). However Quine also states: Idenfication of an object from moment to moment is indeed on a par with iden tifying an object from world to [possiblel world: both identifications are vacuous, pending further directives The nouon of knowing who someone is, or what Ruth Barcan Marms (1963) proposed a substitutjoii0t interetation of first-order logic: This in ierpretanon does not require specification of a universe ofdiscourse in advance but rather admits all mtities that flsie in imp statements, Her interpretation (also called 'tuith-value logic") should be more appropriate for chemical inquinj than is the standard ('objecthl") logical approach. (QuINE 1976, 863) One can understand this as giving the axiom of unrestricted co mposition a pragmatic interpretation: what sorts of items should be in a universe o f dis course depends on the purpose of the discussion-if it should be useful in some particular inquiry, any grouping of items might properly be ta ken to comprise a single unit On that interpretation, the principle of unrestri cted composition would be acceptable, but with an odd notion of existence. The third axiom of CEM (uniqueness of composition) clearly is incompat ible with chemical understanding. Normat butane, CH3CH2CHCH3, an d isobutane (CH3)3CH, have quite distinct properties but identical atomic-lev el constituents (G4H19). This is precisely what the third principle of GEM asserts does not occur. CEM is clearly not appropriate for chemicat wholes and parts. William Wimsatt identified "four conditions [that] seem separately necessary and jointly sufficient for aggregativity or non-emergence"-the situation in whi ch the axioms of CEM might apply. One is absence of cooperative or anti-coopera tive interactions: any such nonlinearity would make CEM inapplicable. The other three conditions require invariance of all system-properties under certain operations: (i) rearranging the system parts, (2) decomposing the system into its parts and then recombining the parts to reconstitute the system, and (3) subtracting parts of the system or adding more similar parts. Ifoperations (I) or (2) result in any change- or there is a quatitative change under operation (3)-then the system is not a mer e aggregation and CEM cannot apply. Wimsatt concludes: "It is rare indeed that all of these conditions are met" (Wimsatt 2006, 675, emphasis in original). Wimsatt developed a trichotomy in which aggregates (to which GEM may apply) are clearly distinguished from composed systems, in which details of con nectivity (in what ways components relate to each other) strongly influence fhe characteristics of the system, and a third class is evolved systems-those that have developed through historical selection processes so that no way of identi fying component parts has priority. In such systems, there is no unambiguous way to determine what the parts of the composite system are: investigations carried out for diverse purposes will identify different items as parts of the system. Investigators who prefer to deal with decomposable coherences avoid such systems-but that does not show that they are either unimportant or un interesting. Chemical systems are composed systems rather than aggregates: Biological and ecological systems generally fall in the evolved-systems cate gory. Since atoms of most chemical elements were generated by contingent processes in exploding stars, chemical entities might also be properly regarded (for some purposes) as evolved systems. Philosophical discussions generally assume (e.g., Robb 2005, Vander Laan 2010), often implicitly (Armstrong 2010), that items do not change when they become parts of wholes-so that there is no ambiguity in identifying which individuals are the parts of a composite whole. Chemical and biological experi ence clearly indicates that entities included as parts of compound individuals onticity. Which levels of entities are to be employed in a discourse is decided during the formulation of the discourse_not in advance, as many logical sys tems assume,3 3 Coherence something is, makes sense only in the light of the situation. It all depends on what more specific question one may have had in mind, 208 Metaphysical Issues NOW PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN suBsTANcEs 209 are greatly changed by their inclusion in such wholes, Items included in coher.. ences often (but not always) retain their individuality-but their properties in the whole are generally not the same as the characteristics of similar items out side such coherences. Simons (1987) pointed out that the Polish logicians from whose work CEM derives had strong prior commitments to nominalism-the doctrine that only individuals actually exist-and that therefore they eschewed recognition ofuni versals (properties and relations). Contemporary nominalists (e.g., Lewis 199;) also regard universals as no more than linguistic conveniences, For them, only particulars really exist. In contrast, ante rem (or Platonic) realists-perhaps in cluding David Armstrong (2010)-hold that properties and relations, although they are not located in space or time, realty exist independently of (and in some sense prior to) the individuals that constitute instances of those universals. Several positions (jointly designated moderate or in rem realism) are interme diate between nominalism and ante rem realism: they typically hold that proper ties and relations are important-but they only exist as features ofindividuals. Kit Fine (2006) and Kathrin Koslicki (2008) endorse the notion that arrangements of components_structures_are essential to the coherence of objects, and therefore structures should be considered proper parts of objects. There is an ur gent need for formal development of alternative mereological systems1 that will have wider applicability than GEM does (Uored 2010, Harré and Uored 2011). David Vander Laan (2010, 135) reports that the question '"Under what con ditions do some objects compose another?' has increasingly been recognized as a central question for the ontology of material objects." This query (known as "the composition question") consists of two sub-questions: i. How can several items fisnction as a single unit in causal interactions? 2. What characteristics must individuals have in order to constitute such a causallyeffective unit? The first is the external (or epistemological) sub-question: the second, the ontological sub-question, 3.2 Symmetries and Groups Three of Wirnsatt's four conditions for aggregativity involve invariance ofsystem properties under a specfied operation. This characteristic of a system is called 'A. \. Whitehead sketched our an alternative mereology even before GEM was developed Simons 1987, 8i 86). Whitehead based his system on an insight that he later summarized as: "However we fix a determinate entity, there is always a narrower determination of something which is presupposed in our first choice, also there is always a udder determination into whichour first choice fades by transition beyond itself" (Whitehead 1967, 93). This can be stated moreformchy as:for every particularx there exists an entity y that extends over x. and there also xists an indhidual z that x extends ovev IXhitehead did not complete development of his mereological system. but his basic approach seems more consistent with chemical practice and its resultsthan is GEM. Both Whitehead's multi-level mereology and Ruth Barcan Marcus' substitutional logic can accommodate the importance ofpwposes in Scientific representation. symmetry. Wimsatt's conclusion can be rephrased as: GEM applies if the system of interest involves neither cooperative or inhibitory interactions, and also is symmetric with respect to all three of the operations, (i) rearranging constituent parts, (2) disassembling and reassembling those fragments, and (3) adding components similar to those already present, or subtracting some of the orig inal parts. Systems to which alt four of these conditions apply are extremely rare. Symmetry conditions such as Wimsatt invokes are at the center ofcurrentlyused tests for the identity of entities. Galileo Galilei's seventeenth-century research led to general and explicit acceptance of the uruformitarian doctrines that physical laws are the same in all parts of the universe, that all times are equivalent, and that no spatial direction is preferred. On this basis, physical objects can properly be described at any specific time (past, present, or thture) and using any convenient coordinate system (oriented in any direction). Since Galileo also established that acceleration (rather than velocity) is what is im portant, objects can be represented as moving with respect to an external ref erence point at any constant velocity. (This is the Galilean principle ofrelativity.) On this basis, the validity of a description would not change on alteration of the single time specification, the three spatial coordinates, the three orientation angles, or the three velocity components (boosts) .Any entity that is not changed by any of these ten transformations (alone or in combination) is considered to be a Galilean particle (Castellani 1998)-that is, such a coherence is properly regarded as a single individual existent. Each of the entities considered in cuirent particle-physics displays symme tries (invariance under appropriate operations) that correspond to (represent) one or another of certain mathematical objects called groups. A group is a spe cial kind of set (a collection of elements) for which applying a stated procedure (the group operation) to any two members of the group generates a member of the group-and not something else. This closure requirement is a severe one: Groups are rare among sets (Joseph E. Earley 2013). The ten operations under which Galilean particles are symmetric (single time-specification, three spatial coordinates, three orientation angles, and three velocity components) constitute the defining operations of the Galilei Group, designated G. Each of the many types of Galilean particles corresponds to a rep resentation of G. Since all the component operations of G can be carried out to greater or lesser degrees without restriction (like the rotations of a circle about its center), G is a continuous group rather than a discontinuous or discrete group. (Rotation ofa regular polygon around its center corresponds to a discrete group.) 3.3 Extensions of the Symmetry Concept In 1929 Hermann Weyl revived a proposal he had made in 1918 that descrip tions of electromagnetic systems would be unchanged by a gauge transforma tion-an operation by which A, the phase5 of the wave function i/i, was changed 5The fraction (say, of the complete (360 1 oscillation completed at a given instant. 210 f Metaphysical Issues HOW PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN SUBSTANCES 211 In this way the apparent 'arbitrariness' formerly ascribed to the potential is now understood as freedom to choose any value for the phase of a wave function without affecting the equation, This is exactly what gauge invariance means. (cAo 1988, 120) By 1927 Wolfgang Pauli had rationalized Pieter Zeeman's 1896 discovery that magnetic fields split spectral lines, on the basis of the proposal that electrons possessed intrinsic angular momentum (spin): he also explained the 1922 demonstration by Otto Stem and Walther Gerlach that magnetic fields split beams of silver atoms, by postulating that silver ions also had spin. In 1928 Paul Dirac rationalized the spins of the electron and of the silver ion by com bining gauge transformations with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity'. The Poincaré Group-the product of the ten operations that define the Galilei group G and the four Lorentz transformations-defined each particle, as the Galilei group had done in ordinary mechanics. After the neutron (discovered in 1932) turned out to be nearly identical to the proton (except for electrical charge), Eugene Wigner (1937) proposed that the proton and neutron should be regarded as alternative energy states of a single particle-type-resembling the two (+V2 and -Y2) spin-states of the elec tron. He suggested the name isospin for whatever characteristic of these enti ties might be analogous to election spin. Isospin, so conceived, does not have units of angular momentum as electron spin does-the name is clearly meta phorical. In 1954, after the detection of other subatomic particles, Chen Yang and Robert Mills proposed that the proton, the neutron, and other hadrons should be considered to be interrelated by gauge symmetries involving iso topic spin (also called isospin or, preferably, isobanc spin) which could assume values including V2, i, and 3/2. This approach predicted the existence of a number of previously-unknown particles that subsequently were experimen tally observed. It turns out that the symmetries corresponding to the electronic spin and isobaric spin are not continuous, as are direct coordinate transformations. For instance, there are only two values of electronic spin f+Yz and -'/2). The morecomplicated groups that replaced the Yang Mills group also have only a rather small number of representations, corresponding to the proton and neutron and to the several excited states (other hadrons) that derive from them. Since only certain specific system-states fulfil the group requirements, the groups pertain ing to those symmetries are designated as discrete or non-continuous groups. 'That is, d - " e' and -a " f d/dx. The Lorentz transfonnations for a body moving with constant velocity (v) in the x direction are: z =z:y=yx =k(x-vt):t' k(t-vx/c'),wherek)i s'/c') 2aiidcisthevelocityof]ight. Extensions and modifications of the Yang-Mills proposal (and also subse quent experimental developments) eventually led to the current Standard Model of Particle Physics fCothngham and Greenwood 2007) which treats hadtons as composed of spin one-half fermions held together by bosons_vector panides of unit spin that arise from quantization of gauge fields (as the photon, the boson that carries electromagnetism, arises from quantization of the elec omagnetic gauge field).8 Spatiotemporal symmetries (such as those of spatial rotation) are called external, global, or geomenic: Phase-syrnrneti in electrody namics and isospin-symmeti are designated internal, local, or dynamic: this usage corresponds to a maior extension of the concept of symmetry.9 The principle that every individual corresponds to a representation of a mathematical group responds to the external (epistemological) part of the composition question: the requirement that operations which combine mem bers of groups always produce members of the group answers the internal (ontological) sub-question. Stability is achieved only when relationships internal to each item demonstrate such closure that states of the system repeatedly re occur-so that the system persists through time. This restriction is severe. Section 4 describes several ways in which that restriction may be satisfied. 4.1 Closure Louis de Brogue After the First World War Louis de Brogue (1892-1987) resumed his university studies and collaborated with his older brother Maurice, an accomplished phys icist. In 1922, the brothers de Broglie confl;ed the astonishing report that electrons produced by impact of X-rays on metals had velocities just as large as the velocities of the electrons used to generate those X-rays. This was as if throwing a log into a lake should cause one similar log (out ofmany on the other side of the lake) to jump up with equal energy (de Brogue and de Brogue 1922). At that time, theories of the internal strncture of atoms that had been devised by Bohr and by Arnold Sommerfeld could adequately rationalize available data on the line spectra of atomic hydrogen and ionized helium-but only by making the assumption that electrons within atoms are restricted to having only certain energyvalues. Those early versions of quantum mechanics (QM) could not explain: "why, among the infinity of motions which an electron ought to be able to have in the atom according to classical concepts only certain ones were possible" (de Broglie 1965, 246). Louis de Brogue deduced from Einstein's theory of relativity and early versions of quantum theory that each material object (including electrons within 'The Standard Model does not have a single theoretical basis but rather is a collection of ad hoc sub-models (MacKinnon 2008). Eugene Wigner remarked: "The concept of smet and inatianCe has been extended into a new area an area where its roots are much less dose to direct eierience and obseatiofl than in the classical area of space-time symmet-. .(\Vigner 1967, ii). by an amount that differed in various locations (A = A(x))-and a corresponding term was added to the electromagnetic potential f,.' With respect to this trans formation, Cao observed: Varieties of Closure 212 Metaphysical Issues HOW PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN SUBSTANCES 213 atoms) must have wave-properties. He wrote: "The fundamental idea ofthe theory of the quantum is the impossibility of depicting an isolated quantity of energy that is not accompanied by a certain frequency" (de Brogue 1972, 1316). In a 1923 Comptes rendus note, Louis de Brogue proposed that each electron had two characteristic frequencies, an intrinsic frequency associated with its rest-mass, and a second frequency that pertained to a wave that moved in the same direction as the electron. With respect to electrons moving on a closed trajectory, he introduced the following postulate: ft is atmost necessan1 to suppose that the trajectoiy of the electron will be stable only f the hypotheticallo wave passing 0' catches up with the electron in phase with it: the wave of frequency v and speed c / has to be in resonance over the length of the trajectory (Dr BROGUE 1923A, 509). That is to say, an atomic system would be stable (that atom would persist as a unified entity) only f the extrinsic wave remains in phase with the internal vibration of the electron corresponding to its intrinsic frequency. The extrinsic wave was then called the phase wave. In fulfilling this postulate, each possible arrangement of an atomic system engenders another subsequent state of the system that also fulfills the criterion. This feature insures that the system, as a coherent unit, persists through time. The only f in the postulate (emphasized in the original French) identifies a clear requirement that a specific relationship between multiple quantities (phases of two vibrations in this case) must obtain in order for a composite system to be stable. The essential novelty of Louis de Brogue's contribution was to provide a clear and specfrc criterion that served as a basis for understanding why some energy-states of electrons in atoms were capable ofpersistence while other apparentlyequivalen possibilities could not attain such longevity. On the basis of this postulate, Louis de Broghe was able to derive the Bohr-Arnold Sommerfeld criteria for the stable energy-states of the electron in the hydrogen atom. This was a great triumph. In a second 1923 note, he predicted that (mate rial) electron-beams would be diffracted as light-beams are (de Brogue r923b). Early in 1927, two groups of experimentalists independently confirmed de Brogue's prediction of electron diffraction-validating a second major achieve ment for him. On the basis of his 1924 doctoral thesis, Louis de Broglie re ceived the 1929 Nobel Prize for Physics. Through Einstein's mediation, that thesis also had facilitated the 1925 development of Schrodinger's wave equa tion-from which the many impressive results of quantum mechanics flow. However, even before Stockholm Nobel festivities celebrated de Broglie's award, his realistic but non-local pilot-wave interpretation of QM had been supplanted (Bonk 1994) by the non-realistic but local Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). The main proponents of CI were strongly influenced by anti-realistic philosophical ideas current in postwar (Weimar) Germany (Cushing 1994). °This replaces "ficfional as a translahon of the French fictive. Closure of networks of relationships (Closure Louis de Brogue) is necessary for persistence of stable things, including chemical entit ies, This requirement has not been emphasized in past and cur-rent philosoph ical discussion of how properties cohere, but it does respond to the second (ontological) part of the composition question: How is it that sever-al Xs can constitute a Y? Criteria analogous to the one that de Brogue discovered provide the basis by which each of the possible states of a system produces a subsequent s tate that has the same characteristics. This suggests that it should be possible to int erpret each of those states as a representation of some mathematical group . Similar situa tions should obtain for every persistent chemical entity. 42 Closure Henri Poincaré Philosophic discussion of composite objects generally assumes that pro perties of composites depend only ("supervene") on the properties of com ponents (Armstrong 2010, 29-32)-the properties of the least-extensive level are held to determine all properties. Whatever its strengths in other fields may be, thi s doc ti-inc does not apply in chemistry. Chemical entities arise from and are susta ined by interactions among their constituents -and mainly derive their characteris tics from those interactions, rather than from properties of the components. Characteristics of dilute gases can sometimes be inferred from informat ion regarding component molecules-based on the approximation that each mo l ecule acts independently. However, when gases are cooled correlations of mo lecular motion develop, first over short ranges then over longer dist ances. Motions of individual molecules become interrelated-so that the prope rties of the macroscopic sample cannot be inferred by mere addition (or other straighifonvard combination) of the properties of the component molecules . Similarly, the simple model that chemical reactions occur by elemen tary steps-events that involve instantaneous collisions of pairs of molecules - seldom is even approximately correct. Generally, in reactions of gaseous spe cies "sticky" collisions produce resonances (transient aggregates) and give ris e to correlations among the properties of molecules. Reactions in condens ed media (e.g., fluid solutions) are even more subject to cooperative influ ences than gas-phase reactions are. In both cool-gas and chemical-reaction cases, as correlation increases appli cation of fundamental theory rapidly becomes unwieldy and impracticable. A t certain pat ameter-values (singularities) computations become impos sible in principle-as computed quantifies go to infinity. In the late nineteenth ce ntury, while dealing the motions of the planets in the solar system, Henri Poinca ré (1854-1912) encountered situations in which standard methods ofphysical m ech anics failed due to the presence of singularities. In such cases, when near singu larities, he replaced variables with divergent series (asymptotic expansions). Th is technique (Berry 1994) allowed otherwise intractable problems to be handled- but it had unexpected consequences. Often, after the variable-replaceme nt, the equations that best described the situation changed discontinuously at th e 214 ) Metaphysical Issues HOW PROPERTIES HOlD TOGETHER IN SUBSTANCES j 215 singularity. Poincaré found that beyond the singularity relatively simple expressions-that emphasized contextually important features and suppressed irrelevant detail-often applied. Similar situations occur in electrodynamics Interaction of the charge of the electron with the vacuum complicates compu. tation of the charge and mass of the electron from experimental data (Teller 1988)-but renormalization (a procedure related to the asymptotic expansion method that Poincaré devised) makes a selfconsistent theory of electrodynamics possible. Similar approaches facilitated adequate understanding of solid-liquid gas phase changes, critical behavior for pure substances, and transitions be tween ferromagnetic and paramagnetic behavior (Batterman 2011): analogous techniques are also used in molecular-dynamics-based approaches to chemical reaction kinetics (Jaffé, Kawai, Palacibn, Yanguas, and Uzer. 2005, 194). The simpler description that asymptotic expansion yields at and after singu larities typically has different semantics (another topology) than the fundamen tal-level description that applied before the singularity. Properties of correlated systems do not supervene on properties ofcomponents-they require quite new and topologically-incommensurable descriptions (Atmanspacher, Amannn, and Müller-Herold '999; Batterman oii; Bishop 2012; Bishop and Atmanspacher 2006; Primas 1998, 2000). When cooperative interaction of units becomes dominant, situations ade quately described by fundamental theories change into situations that require approaches that use quite different sets of entities, and other kinds of relation ships among entities than are used in the fundamental theories. Transition between these diverse topologies of explanation may properly be regarded as a second kind ofclosure (Closure Henri Poincart). Like Closure Louis de Broglie discussed in the previous section, Closure Henri Poincaré vitiates assump tions that properties of entities can adequately be understood on the basis of descriptions based on properties of component parts. That sort of closure also tinderlies the persistence and effectiveness of higher-level entities that result from lower-level cooperativity. This situation is well described by Hans Prirnas: "The task of higher-level theory is not to approximate the fundamental theory but to represent new pat terns of reality" (Primas 1998) Physics Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin argued (2005) that aspects of fundamental physics resultfrom cooperative interactions. 4.3 Closure Ilya Prigogine Investigation of the properties of networks of processes (such as intercon nected chemical or biochemical reactions) is an active field oftwenty-first-century science. Such studies show that modes ofdynamic closure determine the coher ence of properties of important systems, including flames, hurricanes, biolog ical organisms, ecologies, and human societies. Chemical systems conveniently clarify fundamental principles of such coherences, Networks of chemical processes operating in far-from-equilibrium condi tions often give rise to oscillation ofconcentration of components. If the system is closed, such repeated concentration-variation eventually dies out. However if the system is open, so that reactants can continuously enter and products exit, then oscillations may continue indefinitely. In stirred systems, chemical oscil lations may be either gradual or sharp: In the latter case, immense numbers of chemical ions or molecules undergo coordinated chemical change in a fraction of a second, Such dynamic chemical coherences necessarily degrade chemical energy and increase entropy (overall disorder). This type of organization is called dissipative structure. Chemists-particularly Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1997)-have made major contributions to our understanding of such coherent organization of processes in far-from-equilibrium open systems (Prigogine '977, Kondepudi and Prigogine 1998, Earley 2o12a, Lombardi 2012). Each chemical dissipative structure involves a reaction f or set of reactions) that gets faster as it goes on-an autocatalytic process. The simplest example is A + B -" 2 B (where the rate of reaction is proportional to the product of con centrations of A and of B). In this case, B is a direct autocatalyst. Many kinds of interaction that facilitate coordinated or cooperative functioning produce indi rect autocatalysis (e.g., Sugihara and Yao 2009). Systems that involve direct or indirect autocatalysis tend to be unstable-they readily explode and disperse. However, if such a system also involves one or more processes that suitably re duce the autocatalysis (such as B + C - D) then the system may return to its original condition, and even do so repeatedly, thereby generating continuing oscillations-a type of long-term persistence (Earley 2003a). When oscillations occur in open-system chemical systems, variations of concentrations of several components can be followed often over long time periods. Careful study of such time-series (along with relationships among times-series for diverse components, and responses of the system to perturba tions) yields information on the details of the chemical reactions underlying the continuous oscillations. When concentrations of system-components vary in a correlated way, the variation of one may cause the change in another, or alternatively, both may independently depend on some third factor. Studies of relationships among time-series may discriminate between such possibilities if the system is followed for sufficiently long times (Sugihara, May, Ye, Hsieh, Deyle, fogarty, and Munch 2012). In many cases, explicit mathematical mod els of chemical mechanisms reproduce main features of observed time-series (and/or illustrate important behaviors of dynamic coherences). In each such open-system dynamic coherence, the rate of entropy-generation in the presence of the coherence is greater than it would be in the absence of the coherence-defining closure. Also, the effects of the coherence on other items are quite diffbrent from effects of the same components but without the closure. Therefore the system as a whole makes a difference. That coherence must be counted as one of the items that comprise the world (Ney 2009, Earley 2006)-that l5, the dissipative structure as awholehas ontological signif icance. The effects of the structure are the sums of the effects of the compo nents, but which components persist in the system depends on the details of the 216 Metaphysical Issues HOW PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN sUBsTANcEs 217 closure of the network of reactions. The closed network of relationships regu lates the composition of the system. for example, the existence of biological dissipative structures accounts for the production (and therefore the existence) of high-energy molecular species such as sugars, proteins, and DNAs, but those molecules are themselves components of the dissipative structures that produce them, Components are influenced by the characteristics of the coher ences which those same components constitute. Networks of non-linear chemical processes share important characteristics with other complex dynamic coherences, including biochemical oscillations, cardiac rhythms, ecological developmental changes, and financial-market vari ations, Closure 01 networks of processes is essential for all such persistent dy namic coherences. We designate this as Closure fipa Prigogine. 4.4 Robustness of Biochemical Dissipative Structures Surprisingly', some chemical species that are involved in networks ofbiochemical reactions somehow remain at quite constant concentrations for long periods, This robustness ofconcentration occurs both in vitro and in vivo, and can be modeled in siico. Robustness in a network facilitates incorporation of that coherent set of relationships as a reliable component part of more-inclusive dynamic systems. A remarkable theorem (Shinar and Feinberg 2010) clarifies what network character istics are needed to generate the approximate concentration-robristhess that is ex perimentally observed. Specific network properties provide necessary and sufficient conditions for insuring long-term stability of some concentrations. Robustness, considered the ability to continue to function in spite of both internal and external fluctuations, occurs at an amazing variety of nested biological levels. Each of the following illustrations of robustness is well documented (Wagner 2005): The sequence of codons in RNA and DNA is in sensitive to replication errors; the function of proteins does not depend on point-mutations in codons; RNA secondary structure is immune to changes in nucleotides; the spatial structitre and function of proteins does not depend on the amino acid sequence of the protein; the expression function of a gene is robust to mutations in regulatory regions; the outputs of metabolic pathways are little influenced by changes in regulatory genes; genetic networks function even when interactions among network genes alter; metabolic-network func tion is not sensitive to elimination of specific chemical reactions from the net work; development of phenotypic patterns persists even though component genes vary; body-plans of organism survive modifications in embryonic devel opment. Each of these achievements of robustness involves closures that are themselves intricate combinations of simpler sorts of closure. Propensity to engage in cooperative interactions is arguably the most salient characteristic of human individuals. Many of the features of the various worlds we all inhabit are institutional facts-objective realities that are held in being by their widespread acceptance (Searle 2010). Human institutions (e.g. , spe cific languages and ways of living, as well as economic, political, and religious systems) are all based on (usually unconscious) human cooperativity. In all such cases, relationships among constituents must themselves be so interre lated that coherences maintain definition and identity over time. In these cases, system properties do not supervene on properties of constituents. Anthro pologist Jacques Cauvin (2000) explored how prior changes in concepts and social practices made possible initial development of agriculture, and thereby grounded the flourishing of subsequent human cultures. We designate any mode of interrelation of processes which makesfurther network-formation pos sible as Closure Jacques Cauuin, Marjorie Grene (1978, 17) observed: "We do not just have rationality or lan guage or symbol systems as our portable property. We come to ourselves within symbol systems. They have us as much as we have them," Cauvin's insight has been developed by recent studies based on evolutionary network theory tArtan and Henrich 2010, Richerson, Boyd, and Henrich 2010) that have clarified how human agents are themselves shaped by relational networks-at the same time are each of those networks has been created by the behaviors of such agents. Louis de Broglie clarified (for his time) how coherence of electrons and protons constitutes atoms. Henri Poincaré demonstrated how new kinds ofrela tionship (novel topologies) result from cooperative interactions. Ilya Prigogine clarified how far-from-equilibrium dynamic coherences persist in open systems such as when interactions generate large-scale coherences. Jacques Cauvin showed how conceptual innovations (influential institutional facts) made pos sible the distinctive evolution of human societies. In each of these diverse cases, the emergence of novel modes of effective functioning (properties) depends on defining closures of relationships of components. There surely are other significant modes of closure. Closure provides the basis for the origin of novel centers of influence-and thereby grounds the ontological changes which are brought about by cooperative interaction. 5 Structures and Propel-ties 5.1 The Structuralist Revival Considerable attention has recently shifted to structuralist philosophical approaches to scientific (especially microphysical) questions (e.g., Bokulich and Bokulich 2011, Landry and Ricides 2012)11 In 1989 John Wonall pointed out that although entities postulated by scientific theories do change over time, structural aspects of theories tend to persist through stich ontologicat modifica tions. He proposed that what we learn in scientific investigation is correct, but that we learn only about structures-not about entities, This approach, called Such approathes were widely discussed in the first third of the twentieth century (e.g., Eddington 1935). I t I 4. 4.5 Closure Jacques Cauvin 218 Ivietaphysical Issues now PROPPR1TES HOLD TOGETHER IN SUBSTANCES 219 Epistemological Structural Realism (ESR) claims that relationships are more important than are the entities that are related, Others carried this reasoning further and concluded that structure is not only all that we can know but also that structure is all that exists to be known. Steven French (in French and Ladyman 2011, 30), for instance, "dispenses with objects entirely." This moreradical view is called Ontological Structural Realism (OSR). However, the no tion of structures of relationship which do not involve items that are related ("relations without relata") seems paradoxical. Earlier suggestions of the philosophic importance of structures had specifi cally focused on chemical problems. David Armstrong (1978, Vol. 2, 68-71) recommended that "being a methane molecule" should be considered to involve a structural universal (a multiply realizable polyadic relationship that neces sarily involves "being carbon," "being hydrogen," and "being chemically bonded" as correlative universals). 5.2 Are Any Properties Intrinsic? Some versions of OSR consider that all properties of any entity are structurat properties-characteristics that depend on relationships with other entities within structures. This amounts to a denial that entities have intrinsic proper ties-characteristics that they would possess if fully isolated so as to be inde pendent of all relationships. Two recent moderate versions ofOSR provide for intrinsic properties as well as relational ones-and (their adherents claim) thus resolve the relationship-withoutirelata conundrum and introduce causal necessity (modality) into structural realism (SR). In one such proposal, Holger Lyre agrees that all properties are structural, but holds that some structural properties are "structurally derived intrinsic properties (invariants of structure)" (Lyre 2010, sec. 6). He had previously con sidered the relationship between OSR and the symmetry-group (U(i)) which applies to electromagnetism and concluded that, in pennutable theories,12 de scription of objects as solely group-theoretically constituted "becomes mandatory. For there we only have access to the objects as members ofequivalence-classes, under those symmetry transformations which leave the physical properties in variant" (Lyre 2004, 663). In order to establish that some structural properties are intrinsic, Lyre points out: "An object may have its invariant properties ac cording to the world's structure, the structure comes equipped with such prop erties" (Lyre 2012, T7o). Perhaps to allay suspicion that he might be advocating ante rem Platonism, he insists: "The world structure must.., be an instantiated structure" (Lyre 2012. 170). In an alternative proposal designed to introduce causal necessity into SR, Michael Esfeld advocates Causal Realism (CR). He initially proposed that all 'Those which concern partc1es (such as protons) which cannot be distingviished from other particles of the same sort. properties are causal properties (powers") and rejected the (characteristically Humean) doctrine that some properties are categoriat-merely qualitative with no relation to causality (Esfeld 2003). Subsequently, he conceded: "we no longer take OSR-at least in the moderate version that we defend, recognizing objects-to be opposed to the acknowledgement of the existence of intrinsic properties, as long as such intrinsic properties do not amount to an intrinsic identity of the objects" (Esfeld and Lam 2011, 155). He claims that structures (as well as properties) must be causally efficacious: Structures can be causally efficacious in the same sense as intrinsic properties of events: as events can bring about effects in virtue of having certain intrinsic proper ties, they can bring about effects in virtue of standing in certain relations with each other so that it is the network of relations-that is, the structure as a whole-that is causally efficacious. (ESFELD 2012, sec. 3) He further claims that: "In sum, ontic structural realism is suitable as a form of scientific realism only if it commits itself to causal structure, that is to say, only if the essence of the fundamental physical structures is taken to consist in the power to produce certain effects" (Esfeld 2009, i88). 5.3 Can Structures Be Causes? There are objections to the entire structural-realist project F. A. Muller claims that proponents of structural realisms do not adequately specify the meaning of structure-and that the two best-established formal definitions of structure do not have the properties that structural realists require. He claims: "neither set-theoretical nor category-theoretical notions of structure serve the needs of structural realism" (Muller 2010, 399). Stathis Psillos, a persistent critic of SR, argues that OSR incoherently requires that structures be both abstract (multiply realizable) and concrete (causally efficacious)-but since structures (considered as polyadic properties) are purely mathematical entities they cannot have causal efficacy-and therefore structures do not have modal force (Psillos 2012). Rom Harrt and E. H. Madden (1975) revived the moribund notion of causal powers, but Harré (2002) urged members of the Critical Realist school of social psychology (an approach based on Harré's prior work) to cease ascribing causal power to impotent fictions such as "the banking system." Subsequently Harrh (aooqb) identified the tendency toward reification ("substantialism") as lying at the root of the errors he decried-and even went so far as to assert: "Structural models in the human sciences are heuristic models only-there are no structures" (Harré 2009a, 138). This Neo-Thacherian dictum appears to contrast strongly with some of Harré's earlier statements, specifically: "Structured groups, that is, collectives, are ontologically prior to individuals. 'George Molnar (2003, 6o-8i) tried to account for "how these properties [powers] have an object toward which they are oriented or directed' and postulated physical intentionality, but did not give a conuncmg account of it, 220 Metaph-y'sical Issues HO PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN SUBSTANCES 221 Human beings are constituted as people by their interpersonal relations" (Hand 1993, 34), and: "Forms of life are the contexts in which personal and social identities are formed" (Harre 2009a, 142). In his discussion of social causation Harrd identified two modes of causal action-event causality and agent causality. In event causality some happening activates a mechanism that engenders a subsequent result; in agent causality some continuously existing and active being brings about consequences without external stimulation (save, perhaps, removal of obstructions). Harré proposed that detection of event causality requires identification of a mechanism that connects an initiating occurrence with an ensuing result: Recognition of agent causality demands location of one or more specific powerful particulars that act continuously (unless that action is somehow blocked). Harré concluded that only individual human persons qualify as causal agents in social psychology- vague constructs such as the banking system certainly do not merit that desig nation. Both of the modes of causality Harré identifies involve powerful particulars (either events or continuants); neither of them implicates univer sals (properties, relations, or structures) in causality. If, as Esfeld claims, the validity of OSR depends on structures having causal power, then structuralists need to respond to the objections of Muller, Psillos, and Harré by clarifying how (or in what sense) structures may properly be considered causes. 6 Causes and Determinants 6.i Concepts of Causation The word cause has several distinct meanings in standard English-it is poly semic. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (SOED) identifies four connota tions of cause corresponding to: (I) agent, (2) reason, () lawsuit, and (4) social movement. Chemists use cause to refer to both agents and reasons. In con trast, philosophers generally recognize only the first (agent) meaning of cause given in the SOED, and regard all other uses as suspect-or just wrong. Ernan McMullin (i) quoted the section of Aristotle's Physics (ip4b, 18-20) that introduces the four types of cause (material, formal, efficient, and final)-"Knowledge is the object of our inquhy, and men do not think they know a thing until they have grasped the 'why' of it (which is to grasp its pri mary cause)." This definition appears to identify cause and reason. McMullin concluded that what Aristotle meant by cause differs in important ways from how most philosophers now understand that term. Although Aristotle counted any adequate response to a why-question as a cause (aitia), he also made a clear distinction between efficient causes (changeinitiating agents) and fo?7nal causes-arrangements necessary for an event to occur. As Psillos (2012) points out, structures are formal: The objection that structures cannot be causes seems related to the distinction between efficient and formal causality. Robert Pasnau (2004) carefully described how, during the rapid development and subsequent slow decline of medieval Scholastic philosophy, the understanding of the Aristotelian concept of substantial form (roughly equivalent to the modem notion of structure) gradually changed away from its original (purely formal) Aristotelian meaning, and increasingly ac quired overtones of efficient agency. Pasnau concluded that the further modi fications in the usual philosophical understanding ofcause which subsequently occurred should be interpreted as continuations of that trend. With the success of Newtonian physics, only interactions similar to events on billiard tables (where precisely determined impacts yielded exactly predict able results) came to be considered as causally significant inteiactions, Impact of impenetrable corpuscles became the paradigmatic causal process; efficient causality took over the designation cause. Most philosophers relegated any other factors that might be involved in answers to why-questions to subordi nate status-or to oblivion. 6.2 Limits to Agency Mario Bunge pointed out that: Some of the grounds for the Renaissance redaction of causes to the causa effciens were the following: (a) it ]the efficient cause] was, of all the four [Aristotelian causes], the sole clearly conceived one; (b) hence it was mathematically express ible; (c) it could be assigned an empirical correlate, namely an event (usually a motion) producing another event (usually another motion) in accordance with fixed rules...; (d) as a consequence, the efficient cause was controllable; more over its control was regarded as leading to the harnessing of nature (BUNGE 1959, 32) However, although Bunge does "restrict the meaning of the term cause to effi cient cause, or extrinsic motive agent, or external influence producing change" (33), he also recognizes that "causation... is only one among several types of determination; there are other types of lawful production, other levels of inter connection" (30). He distinguishes between causes (effective agents-the how of things) and reasons (rational explanations-the why of things), pointing out that these two notions are often confounded: "The identity of explanation with the disclosing of causes is even rooted in the Greek language, in which aition and logos are almost interchangeable since both mean cause and reason. The confusion of cause with reason, and that of effect with conseqtient, are, more over, common in our everyday speech" (226-227)) Biologist Ernst Mayr-a founder of the modem synthesis in evolutionary theory-urged (1961) that biologists clearly distinguish proximate causes from ultimate causes. The ultimate causes of the long-distance migrations of certain birds, for instance, are (in Mayr's view) the historical explanations (largely in terms of natural selection) that account for why those birds carry out such jour neys: the proximate causes are whatever hormonal changes (or other internal Bunge subsequently observed: "From the point of view of cognitive neuroscience, reasons for acting are efficient causes" (Bunge 2050, 224) I 222 j Metaphysical Issues HOW PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN suBsTANces 223 mechanisms) account for how that behavior-pattern works out in practice, in Bunge's terminology, Mayr's ultimate causes are not causes but reasons; only Mayr's proximate causes would properly be designated causes (as current phi losophers use that word). It is now clear that most interesting biological systems do not fit Mayr's recom mendation nearly as well as seasonal bird migrations do. Avian flight patterns have vanishingly small effects on the progression of the seasons-cause and effect are quite distinct-but, in contrast, the vast majority of biological systems involve re ciprocal (rather than unidirectional) causality, so that Mayr's distinction does not apply. In discussion ofthis point, Kevin Laland and his colleagues report: "When a trait evolves through intersex-nal selection, the source of selection is itself an evolv ing character. The peacock's tail evolves through though the mating-preferences in peahens and those preferences coevolve with the male trait" (Laland, Sterelny, Odling-Smee, Hoppitt, and Tuler 2011, 1512). Whenever reciprocal determination makes it impossible cleanly to distinguish causes from reasons, restricting cau sality to efficient causes (as philosophers recommend) is not appropriate. 6.3 Peircean Determinants T L. Short (2007, 105-107) observed that the narrowness of the contemporary philosophic understanding ofcausation (a baleful influence, he says, of Hume's ghost) has unfortunate effects-but called attention to an understanding of causality developed by Charles S. Peirce. Stephen Pratten (2009) sttggested that Short's interpretation of Peirce's causal theory provided an adequate re sponse to Harré's conclusion that structures cannot be causes. The interactions that classical mechanics deals with have time-reversal sy-m metry: Videos of billiard-ball collisions look the same whether running forward or backward, In contrast, many natural processes proceed in only one direction. (The spark-induced explosion of a mixture of H2 and 07 loudly leads to rapid production of HO: the reverse reaction is unobservable.) Peirce calls such uni directional processes "finious;" Short suggests the designation "anisotropic;" chemists call such changes "irreversible.' Pierce held an alternate kind of causal process obtains in irreversible processes-"that mode of bringing facts about according to which a general description of result is made to come about, quite irrespective ofany compulsion for it to come about in this or that particular way; although the means may be adapted to the end" (C? 1.211). This corresponds to understanding cause as reason rather than as agent-that is, to using the second denotation of the Fnglish word cause given in the SOED, rather than the first. Peirce considered that Darwin's account of the origin of biological species exemplifies this alternative mode of result-determination. Natural selection gradually (and irreversibly) eliminates those characteristics of organisms that are not suited to the environmental conditions that prevail. Such reduc tion (culling) of possibilities eventually produces one particular determinate result-which outcome is prothtced depends on the contingencies of the culling rather than on the action of underlying agents. There remains little doubt that the Darwinian theory indicates a real cause, which tends to adapt animal and vegetable forms to their environment, A very remarkable feature of it is that it shows how merely fortuitous variations of indi viduals together with merely fortuitous mishaps to them would, under the action of heredity, result, not in mere irregularity, nor even in a statistical constancy, but in continual and indefinite progress toward a better adaptation of means to ends, (a' 7.395) Natural selection works in such a way as to produce adaptation of life-forms to their circumstances (Thompson 2012). This general aim "does not determine in what particular way it is to be brought about, but only that the result shall have a certain general character. The general result may be brought about at one time in one way, and at another time in another way" (C? 1.211). On this basis, Peirce considers that each effective selection-criterion is a gen erat rather than a particutar (a universal rather than a substance). Each such criterion might be called a controlling general-an outcomedetermining univer sal. By this means structures (closures of relationships that have the property of engendering future versions of the same clostires) would have result-shaping effects, although they are not agents. In other words, if a certain state-of-affairs results from a prior selection on the basis of some criterion, that criterion (a uni versal) is a determinant (a cause in a general sense) ofthat state of affairs, To the extent that closure ofa network ofrelationships ofcomponents is a prerequisite for the stability of entities, that closure (which corresponds to a structural uni versal) is also a necessary determinant of the states of affairs that it engenders. The key feature is that if an equivalent to selection accounts of the existence of a structure, then the influence of that structure (as such) may properly be termed a determinant-a cause, in a sense that is more general is usually recognized by the dialect of the province of the philosophers. 6.4 Non-Agentive Determination in Oseltamivir-Resistant Swine flu Several experimental results have recently been reported that show how struc tural features determine outcomes as reasons rather than as agents. Since 1990, millions of people have been sickened by swine flu-infection by the HiNi influenza virus, From its introduction in 1999 until recently the drug oseltamivir (Tamiflu, Hoffman-La Roche) has been effective against swine flu. However, during drug-testing, a mutation (named H274Y)15 made the virus immune to oseltamivir-but also impaired infectivity of the virus and did not reduce the drug's effectiveness. In 2007 several oseltamwir-resistant strains ofthe virus with no reduction in virulence appeared. Bloom, Gong, and Baltimore (2010) found that two additional mutation&6 had occurred independently and enabled the virus to tolerate subsequent H274Y mutation without loss of viru lence. The first new mutation was ineffective: the second mutation increased Tyrosine (Y) replaced histidine (H) at position 274 in the virus DNA. 6LiiiQ and Sio6P. 224 ( Metaphysical Issues HOW PROPERTIES HOLD TOGEIHER IN SUBSTANCES 225 the effectiveness of the otherwise-innocuous first mutation: combination of the mutations was result-determining. Such a combination (as a determinant of the outcome) is not an efficient cause. It is a reason not an agent. Determinants of this sort can be identified when some arrangements function while others fail. Such pruning defines a result Tenaillon, Rodriguez-Verdugo, Gaut, McDonald, Bennett, Long, and Cant (2012) and Meyer, Dobias, Weitz, Barrick, Quick, and Lenski (2012) reported other examples of non-agential determination. In each case a result depended on actions of particulars but those actions did not detennine the result: Selection constraints specified the outcome, Rather than actions of components deter mining the outcome, constraints determined which components acted-and thereby specified what actually happened. 6.5 Contextual Determination Every macroscopic state of affairs involves myriads of microscopic and submi croscopic components. In the absence of external constraints (so all compo nents are independent) each sample would have an immense number of equally-probable possible future states. But no real rystem is unconstrained. Every sample has a history (usually unknown and untold) that specifies its current context and limits the range of available futures (Barley 20121)). Theories that apply at the level of micro-components provide necessary conditions for proper ties of more-inclusive coherences-but they do not proc'ide sufficient conditions: Sufficient conditions must be dealt with by less-fundamental approaches. An open vat of nutritious broth quickly changes into a teeming mass of biological organisms, but which specfic type(s) oforganism result depends on the particu lar species that happen(s) happily to colonize that soup. "The;-e are properties of the higher-level theories (chemistry and thermody namics) for which the foil arsenal of the fundamental theories (quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics) provide no sufficient conditions for their derivation or definition" (Bishop and Atmanspacher 2006, 1755). By contextual property emergence, upper-level properties derive from the context ofconstraints of the system as well as from the underlying level which involves less-extensive components. Upper-level constraints typically remove degeneracies that char acterize lower-level situations and thus lead to stable states. "Necessary condi tions due to the original topology of the basic description are not violated as the new topology is consistent with (though not implied by) the original topology." Such constraints are contextual determinants. The network of relationships that underlies and defines an emergent coher ence corresponds to one or more structural universals. The problem of the mo dality of structural realism arises from the concern that mathematical objects (such as structural universals) should not directly have physical effects. In the cases considered here each structural universal corresponds to the closure of a network of relationships-a physical process that has consequences. Closure of networks of interactions among components generally leads to situations that persist and/or recur. This is how behavior-patterns (properties in Peirce's sense) of substances remain coherently related over time. 6.6 Ordinary Things But what about ordinary entities, such as David Robb's tennis ball Alpha (dis cussed in section i.6, above)? How can we understand the coherence ofAlpha's properties? That tennis ball coheres and behaves as a unit because the many billions of elemental centers (atoms) that make up that sphere adhere to each other through rather stable chemical bonds-each one a closure of attractive and repulsive forces that is protected from disruption by activation-barriers. But why do those particular bonds exist rather than others? Why is Alpha small and yellow rather than some other size and color? The International Tennis Federation (ITF) defined the official diameter of a regulation tennis ball as 65.41-68.58 mm (2.575-2.700 inches), and ruled that balls must weigh between 56.o g and 59.4 g (1.975-2.095 ounces). Yellow and white are the only tennis-ball colors that are approved by the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and the ITF. Since 1972 most tennis balls have been made in a specific fluorescent yellow color-because research showed that balls of that color were more visible on television that those of any other color. The properties of tennis ball Alpha depend on the well-understood phys ical and chemical factors that determine how chemical bonds relate to each other-but also on contingent historical, economic, and psychological factors that influence decisions of the USTA and ITF committees that specified what properties are necessary for a ball to qualify as a regulation tennis ball. In this sense Alpha is as much an evolved system (in Wimsatt's trichotomy) as is any biological species or individual Pt oduction of tennis balls (what Peirce would have called afinious process) is clearly much influenced by determinants of sev eral types, whether or not philosophers would designate such factors as causes. In Robb's example, and in all other cases, closures of relationships of con stituents-determining structural universals-serve as criteria for selection among results of activities of powerful particulars. In each case, coherence at any level influences and depends on both wider and narrower (more-inclusive and less-inclusive) integrations. The characteristics of material objects that phi losophers discuss depend on closures that involve chemical components-and also on human decisions within more-or-less stable cultural integrations (insti tutional facts). Properties stay together in each chemical entity because networks of dynamic relationships among components generate a closed set of subsequent states. Each such closure depends on continuance of closures in its components, and also may participate in (and be determined by) closures of more-inclusive rela tionship-networks. Structures (polyadic relationships) determine specific out comes, even though they are not themselves agents. Throughout human evolution people have modified naturally occurring materials to produce useful items. Major cultural advances occurred when 226 Metaphysical Issues HOW PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN suB sTANcEs 227 chemical processes (cooking, baking of ceramics, ore-smelting, etc.) were first used to improve natural resources. Arguably tin-bronze was the first artificial material intentionally synthesized in order to produce speuftc properties imporiant for more-inclusive coherences. In the third millennium oc, techniques for man ufacture and use ofeffective bronze daggers spread (;emarkably rapidly) throughout lands surrounding the Aegean Sea: "Just as every nation in the Levant need[ed] tanks in the 1960S and 197os, so every man needed a dagger during the bronze age" (Renfrew 2011, 320). In our own culture, most of the items with which we deal are made of arti ficial materials. from one point of view, behavioral characteristics of each such item hang together because of chemical bonding: in a another sense, those properties exist because each item is useful in some context-and that criterion of utility motivated the designer, manufacturer and purchaser. On that basis, every artifact which contains artificial materials is an evolved system in Wimsatt's trichotomy. Diachronic modes of thought must be used to understand all items: synchromc methods-attempting to understand coherences in terms of their current composition without attention to how those integrations came to be-yield wrong conclusions. Persistence of every entity depends on closure of relationships among its com ponents (each part must be stable enough) and is also determined by higher-level integrations ofwhich that entity is a component. Creative activity, some involv ing human action, continually generates "new shapes of value which merge into higher attainments of things beyond themselves" (Whitehead 1967, 94). References Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketchfor a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Attnanspather, Harald and Primas, Hans. (2003). "Epistemc and ontic quantum realities." In Time, Quantum Information (Lutz Castell and Otfaled Isthenberic, eds.). Berlin: Springer, 301-321. (http://wwwigpp.de/english/tda/pdf7vaexjoe.pdf) Atmanspacher, H., Amann, A., and Muller-Herold, U. (i). Oa Quanta, Mind and Matter: Hans Primas in Context, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Atran, Scott and Heonch, Joseph. (2010). 'The evolution of religion: How cognitive by-products, adaptive learning heuristics, ritual displays, and group competition generate deep commitments to pro-social religions,' Biological Theory, 5, 18-30. Bader, R. f. W., and Matta, C. F. (2013). "Atoms in molecules as non-overlapping, bounded, space-filling open quantum systems," foundations ofChemistry, 15, 253-276, Bames, Jonathan, ed. (1984). Complete Works ofriristotle, Volume One. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Batterman, Robert W. (2011). "Emergence, singularities, and synunetry-breaking," foundations ofPhysics, 41, 103 ;-io56. BenoVsky, Jiri. (2008). "The bundle theory and the substratum theory: deadly enemies or twin brothers?" Philosophical Studies, 141, 175-190. Berry, Michael. (1994). "Asymptotics singularities and the reduction of theories.' In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy, IX (D. Prawitz, B. Skyrms, and D. WesterstIhi, eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V., 597-607. Bishop. Robert C. (2012). "fluid convection, constraint and causation," Interface Focus, 2, 4-12. Bloom, J., Gong, L., and Baltimore, 0. (2010). "Permissive secondary mutations enable the evolution of influenza oseltanuvir resistance," Science, 328, 1272-1277. BokLthulh, Peter, and Bokulich, Alisa, eds. (2011). Scientfic Structuratism. Dordrecht: Springer. Bonk, Thomas. (1994). "Why has de Broglie's theory been rejected?" Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 375-396. Bunge, Mario. (2010). Matter and Mind. Dordrecht: Springer. Bunge, Mario. (1959). Causality: The Place of the Causal Principle in Modern Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cao, TianYu. (1988). "Gauge Theory and the Geometrization of fundamental Physics." In Philosophical foundations of Quantum Field Theory (Harvey R Brown and Rom Hané, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Castellani, Elena. (1998). Interpreting Bodies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cauvin, Jacques. (2000). The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture (T. Watkins, trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge Umversity Press. Cothngham, W. N., and Greenwood, D. A. (2007). An Introduction to the Standard Model ofParticle Physics. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cushing, James T. (1994). Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. de Broglie, Louis. (1972). "Phase waves of Louis de Brogue" (J. Haslett, trans.), American Journal of PhySics. 40, 1315-1320. de Broglie, louis. (1965). "The Wave Nature of the Electron." In Nobel Lectures, Physics 1922-1941. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 244-256. de Broglie, Louis. (1923a). "Radiation, Waves and Quanta" (Brigitte lane and Barton Lane, trans.), Comptes rend us 177, 507-510. de Broglie, Louis. (1923b). "Quanta de lumière, diffraction et interferences," Comptes rendus, 177, 548-551. de Broglie, Maurice, and de Brogue, Louis. (1922). "Remarques sir les spectres corpuscupaires et l'effet photo-electrique." Comptes rendus, 175, 1139-1141. Ditzr, 5., fodor, Z., frison, J., Hoelbling, C., Hoffmann, R., Katz, 5. 0., et al. (2008). 'Ab initio determination of light hadron masses," Science, 322, 1224-1227. fancy, Joseph 11. (2013). "Three concepts ofchenilcal closure and their epistemological significance." In Philosophy of Chemistry: Practices, Methods and Concepts (JeanPierre Uored, ed). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 608-628. Earley, Joseph E. (zoIza). "Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003)." In Handbook ofthe philosophy of Science, Volume 6. Philosophy of Chemistry (Andrea Woody, Robin Hendry, and Paul Needham, eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 165-175. Earley, Joseph E. (2o12b). "A neglected aspect of the puzzle of chemical structure: How history helps" Foundations of Chemistry, 14, 235-244. 228 Metaphysical Issues now pROPERTIES HoLD TOGETHER IN suBSTANcES 229 Earle> Joseph F. (aoo$a). "Ontologically significant aggregation: Process structumi realism (PSR)." In Handbook of Whiteheathan Process Thought, Volume 2 (Michel Wéber and Will Desmond, eds.), Frankfurt; Ontos Verlag, ;-ii, Earley, Joseph E. (2oo8l). 'Process structural realism, instance ontology and societal o;der." In Researching with Whitehead: System and Adventure (franz Riffert and Hans-]oac}rjm Sande, eds.). Berlin: Alber, 190-211. Larley, Joseph F. (2006). "Chemical 'substances that are not 'chemical substances'," Philosophy of Science, 7, 814-852. Barley, Joseph F. (2003a). "Constraints on the origin of coherence in far-from equilibrium chemical systems." In Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience (Timothy F Eastman and Hank Keeton, eds.). Albany: State University of New York Press, 63-73. Earley, Joseph B. (2003b). "Varieties of properties: An alternative distinction among qualities." Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 988, 80-89. Fancy, Joseph F. (1998). "Modes of chemical becoming," Hyte, 4, 105-115. (http:// www.hyle.org/ journal/issues/4/earlev htrn) Barley, Joseph 5. (1992). "The nature of chemical existence." In Metaphysics as foundation: Essays in Honor of Ivor Leclerc (Paul Bogaard and Gordon Treash, eds.). Albany: State University of New York Press, 272-284. Fddington, Arthur. (I93). The Nature ofthe Physical World. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Esfeld, Michael. (2012). "Causal realism." In Probabilities, Laws, and Structures (D. Dieks, W J, Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, M. StOltznei; and NI. Weber, eds.). Dordretht Spflnger, 157-169. Esfeld, Michael. (2009). "The modal nature of structures in ontic structural realism," International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23, 179-194. Esfeld, Michael. (2003). "Do relations require underlying intrinsic properties? A physical argmnent for a metaphysics of relations," Metaphysica, 4, 5-25. Fsfeld, Michael, and Lam, Vincent. (2011). "Ontic sthichiral realism as a metaphysics of objects." In Bokujjch and Bokulich (2011), 143-160. Ezra, G. S., Waalkens, H., and Wiggins, S. (2009). "Microcanonical rates, gap limes, and phase space dividing surfaces," Journal of Chemical Physics, 130, 164118- 164133. Fine, Kit. (2006). "In defense of ilmae.dimens,onalism," Journal of Philosophy, 103, 699-714. French, S., and Ladyman, J. (2011). "In Defence of Ontic Structural Realism." In Bokulich and Bokulich (2011), 25-43. Grene, Marjorie. (1978). "Paradoxes ofhistoricity," Review ofMetaphysics, 32, I536. Han-b, Rom. (2009a). "Saving critical realism," Journal ofthe Theory ofSocial Behavior, 39, 129-143. HalTb, Rom. (2009b). "The siren song of substanlialism," Jounial of the Theory of Social Behavior, 3, 466-473. Hanb, Rom. (2002). "Social reality and the myth of social structure," European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 111-123. Harrh, Rom. Social Being. Oxford: Blackwell. Harré, Rom, and Uored, Jean.Pierre (2011). "Mereologies as the grammars of chemical discourses," foundatio;s of Chemistry, 13, 63-76. Harrb, Rom, and Madden, E. H, Causal Poivers. Oxford: Bladcwell. Hume, David. (1739). A Treatise on Human Nature, london: John Noon. 5 'I I Humphiys, Paul. (2008). "Synchrornc and diachronic emergence," Mind and Machines, i8, 431-442. Humph;ys, Paul. (1997). "How properties emerge," Philosophy of Science, 64, 1-17. Jaffé, C., Kawai, S., Palacián, J., Ya;iguas, P., Uzer, T. (2005). "A new look at the tiansition state. Wigner's dynamical perspective revisited," Advances in Chemical Physics A. 130, 171-216. Kondepuch, Dilip, and Prigogine, Ilya. (1998). Modern Thennodynamics: from Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures. New York: Wiley. Koslilici, Kathrin. (2008). The Structure ofObjects. New York: Oxford University Press. Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling Smee, J., Hoppiti, W., and Uler, T. (201;). "Cause and effect in biology revisited: Is Mayi 's proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful?" Science, 334, 1512-1516. Landiy, Elaine, and Rickles, D. P.. eds. (2012). Structural Realism: Structure, Object. and C'ausality. Dordrecht: Springer. Laughlin, Robert. (2005).A Dj,ffirent Universe: Inventing Physics from the Bottom Down. New York; Basic Books. Lewis, David. (1991). Parts of Classes. Oxford: Blackweli. Llored, Jean.Pierre. (2010). "Mereoiogv and quantum chemistry: The approximation of molecular orbitals," foundations of Chemistry 12, 203-221. Locke, John. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Thomas Basset Lombardi, Olivia. (2012). "Prigogine and the many voices of nature," foundations of Chemistry, 14, 205-220. Lyre, Holger. (2012). "Structural invariants, structural kinds, structural laws." In Probabilities, Laws, and Structures (D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, NI, Stöltzner, and M. Weber, eds.). Dordrecht; Springer, 169-183. Lyre, Holger. (2010). "Humean Perspectives on Structural Realism." In The Present Situation in the Philosophy ofScience (F. Stadler, ed.). Doncfredit Sprmgen, 381-397. Lyre, Holger. (2004). "Holism and structuralisin in U(i) gauge theory," Studies in History and Philosophy ofModern Physics, 35, 643-670. MacKinnon, Edward. (2008). "The standard model as a philosophical challenge," Philosophy of Science, 75, 447-457. Marcus, Ruth Barcan. (1963). "Modal Logics I; Modalities and Intentional Languages." In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume i (Marx Wantofsky, ed.). Dordrecht Reidel, 77-116. Mayr, Ernst. (1961). "Cause and effect in biology," Science, 134, ioi-io6. McIntyre, lee. (2007). "Emergence and reduction in chemistry; ontological or epistemological concepts?" Synthese. 155, 337 343. McMullin, Frnan. (1999). "Imagination, insight, and inference," Proceedings of tile American Catholic Philosophical Association, 73, 251-265. Mellor, D. 1-1 (2006). "Wholes and parts; The limits of composition," South African Journal of Philosophy, 25, 138-145. Mertz, Donald W. (2003). "An instance ontology for structures; Their definition, identity, and indiscemibifity," Metaphysica, 4, 127-164. Mertz, Donald W. (1996). Moderate Realism and Its Logic. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni versity Press, Meyer, J., Dobias, D., Weitz, J,, Banilic, J., Quick, R., and Lenslti, R. (2012). "Repeatability and contingency in the evolution of a key innovation in phage lambda," Science, 335, 428-432. 230 Metaphysical Issues How PROPERTIES HOLD TOGETHER IN suBsTANcEs j 231 Millikan, Ruth Garrett. (2000). On Clear and Confused Ideas. New York: Cambridge University Press. Molnar, George. (2003). Powers: A Study in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. IvItiller, F. A. (2010). "The Characterization of Structure: Definition versus Axiomat ization." In The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science (F. Stadler, ed.). Dordretht, Springer, 399-417. Ney, Alyssa. (2009). "Physical causation and difference-making," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 6o, 737-764. Pasnau, R. (2004). "Form, substance and mechanism," Philosophical Review, 13, 31-86. PraUen, Stephen. (2009). "Critical and realism and causality: Tracing the Aristotelian legacy," Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 39, 189-218. Prigogine, IIya. (1977). "Time, Structure and fluctuations." In Nobel Lectures in Chemistry, 1971-1980 (Sture forsbn, ed.). Singapore: World Stienfific. http://www .nobelprize.org/nobe]_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/ptigogine-lecture html. Primas, Hans. (2000). "Asymptotically Disjoint Quantum States." In Decoherence: Theoretical, fxperimental and Conceptual Problems (Pilippe Blanchard, Domenico Giulini, Erich Joos, Claus Kiefer, and Ion-Olympia Stamatescu, eds.). Berlin: Springer, 161-176. Primas, Hans. (1998). "Emergence in the exact natural sciences," Acta Polytech nicer Scandinai'ica, 91, 83-98. Psillos, Stathis. (2012), "Adding Modality to Onfic Structuralism: An Exploration and Critique." In Landry and Ricldes (2012), 169-186. Putnam, H. (2004). Ethics without Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Putnam, H. (1969). "On Properties." In Essays in Honor of Carl C. Hempel (Nicholas Rescher, ed.). Dordretht: Reidel, 235-254. Quine, W. V. (1976). "Worlds away," Journal ofPhilosophy, 73, 859-863. Renfrew, Cohn. (2011). The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium bc. Oxford: Oxbow. Ritherson, Peter J,, Boyd, Robert, and Flenrych, Joseph. (2010). "Gene-culture coevo lution in the age of genomics," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 107, 8985-8992. Robb, David. (2009). "Substance." In The Routlcdge Companion to Metaphysics (Robin le Poidevin, Peter Simons, Andrew McGonigal, and Ross P. Cameron, eds). New York: Routledge, 256-265. Robb, David. (2005). "Qualitative unity and the bundle theory," The Monist, 88,466-493. Searle, John R. (2010). Making the Social World. New York: Oxford University Press, Shinar, Guy, and feinberg, Martin. (20,0). "Structural sources of robustness in biological networks," Science, 327, 1389 1391. Short, T. L. (2007). PeirceS Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Sider, Theodore. (2006). "Bare particulars," Philosophical Perspectives. 20, 387-397. Simondon, Gilbert. (1964). L'indii'idt, ci Sn genése physico-biotogique. Paris: PUF. Simons, Peter. (1994). "Particulars in particular clothing: Three frope theories of substance," Philosophy and Phenon,euoiogicat Research, 5, 553-575. Simons. Peter. (1987). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sugihara, G., May, R., Ye, H., Hsieh, C., Doyle, F., fogarty, M., and Munch, S. (2012). "Detecting causality in complex ecosystems" Science, 336, 496-500. Sugthara, G. and Ye, II. (2009). "Cooperative network dynamics," Nature, 456, 979-960. Teller, P. (1988). "Three problems of renormalization." In Philosophical Foundations of Quantum field Theory (Harvey R. Brown and Rom Hané, eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 73-89. Tenaillon, 0., RodriguezVerdUg0, A., Gaut, R., McDonald, P., Bennett, A., Long, A., and Gaut, B. (2012). "The molecular diversity of adaptive convergence" Science, 335, 457-461. Thompson, John N. (2012). "The role of coevolufion," Science, 335, 410-411. Vander Laan, D. (2010). "A relevance constraint on composition" AustralasiaiiiOitrnat of Philosophy, 88, 135-145. Wagner, Andreas. (2005). Robustness and Evoivability in Living Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Weiss, Paul. (,59). first Considerations. Carbondale. Southem Illinois University Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosinology Corrected Edition (David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne, eds.). New York: free Press. Whitehead, A. N. (1967) Science and the Modern World. New York: Free Press. Whitehead, A. N., and Russell, B. (io). Principia Mathematica to*56 (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wigner, Eugene. (1967). Symmetries and Reflections. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wigner, Eugene. (1937). "On the consequences of the symmetry of the nuclear Hamiltonian on the spectroscopy of nude1," Physical Review, 51, 106-130. Wimsatt, William C. (zoo6). "Aggregate, composed, and evolved systems: Reduc tionistic heuristics as means to more holistic theories," Biology Philosophy, 21, 667 -702. How PROPERTIES HOLD TOGEIHER IN SUBSTANCES 1 233232 I Metaphysical Issues