Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T10:17:56.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Similarity Structure and Emergent Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Samuel C. Fletcher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of emergence is commonly invoked in modern physics but rarely defined. Building on recent influential work by Jeremy Butterfield, I provide precise definitions of emergence concepts as they pertain to properties represented in models, applying them to some basic examples from space-time and thermostatistical physics. The chief formal innovation I employ, similarity structure, consists in a structured set of similarity relations among those models under analysis—and their properties—and is a generalization of topological structure. Although motivated from physics, this similarity-structure-based account of emergence applies to any science that represents its possibilia with (mathematical) models.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 281 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks to audiences in Pittsburgh (October 2015), Oxford (November 2017), Valparaiso (March 2018), Nantes (June 2018), Seattle (November 2018), and Amsterdam (May 2019) for their comments as this project evolved, especially Esteban Céspedes and two outstanding anonymous referees.

References

Abrams, M. 2006. “Infinite Populations and Counterfactual Frequencies in Evolutionary Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2): 256–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J. 1975. Admissible Sets and Structures. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G., Güth, W., and Kliemt, H. 2008. “Approximate Truth in Economic Modelling.” Homo Oeconomicus 25 (3/4): 263–83.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2011a. “Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape.” Foundations of Physics 41 (6): 920–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2011b. “Less Is Different: Emergence and Reduction Reconciled.” Foundations of Physics 41 (6): 1065–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2014. “Reduction, Emergence, and Renormalization.” Journal of Philosophy 111 (1): 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, C. 2001. “Taking Thermodynamics Too Seriously.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 32:539–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1967. The Logical Structure of the World: Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, trans. George, Rolf A. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chang, C. C., and Keisler, H. J. 1973. Model Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Crowther, K. 2016. Effective Spacetime: Understanding Emergence in Effective Field Theory and Quantum Gravity. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, S. C. 2016. “Similarity, Topology, and Physical Significance in Relativity Theory.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (2): 365–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, S. C. 2018a. “Global Spacetime Similarity.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 59 (11): 112501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, S. C. 2018b. “On Representational Capacities, with an Application to General Relativity.” Foundations of Physics, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, S. C. 2019a. “Counterfactual Reasoning within Physical Theories.” Synthese, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, S. C. 2019b. “On the Reduction of General Relativity to Newtonian Gravitation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, S. C. Forthcoming. “Similarity Structure on Scientific Theories.” In Topological Philosophy, ed. Skowron, B. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fletcher, S. C., Palacios, P., Ruetsche, L., and Shech, E. 2019. “Infinite Idealizations in Science: An Introduction.” Synthese 196 (5): 1657–69.Google Scholar
Francescotti, R. 1999. “Mere Cambridge Properties.” American Philosophical Quarterly 36 (4): 295–308.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. 2016. “Emergence.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science, ed. Humphreys, P., 759–78. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knox, E. 2016. “Abstraction and Its Limits: Finding Space for Novel Explanation.” Noûs 50 (1): 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konikowska, B. 1997. “A Logic for Reasoning about Relative Similarity.” Studia Logica 58 (1): 185–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2019. “Levels: Descriptive, Explanatory, and Ontological.” Noûs 53 (4): 852–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malament, D. B. 1977. “Observationally Indistinguishable Space-Times.” In Foundations of Space-Time Theories, ed. Earman, J., Glymour, C., and Statchel, J., 61–80. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Manchak, J. B. 2009. “Can We Know the Global Structure of Spacetime?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (1): 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, T., and Callender, C. 2016. “Turn and Face the Strange … Ch-Ch-Changes: Philosophical Questions Raised by Phase Transitions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, ed. Batterman, R., 189–223. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mormann, T. 1996. “Similarity and Continuous Quality Distributions.” Monist 79 (1): 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. 2019. “Infinity and the Foundations of Linguistics.” Synthese 196 (5): 1671–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2012. “Approximations and Idealizations: Why the Difference Matters.” Philosophy of Science 79 (2): 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, T., and Wong, H. Y. 2015. “Emergent Properties.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/.Google Scholar
Rantala, V. 1977. Aspects of Definability. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Schreider, J. A. 1975. Equality, Resemblance, and Order, trans. Greendlinger, Martin, rev. ed. Moscow: Mir.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2019. “The Structure of Asymptotic Idealization.” Synthese 196 (5): 1713–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tahko, T. E. 2018. “Fundamentality.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fundamentality/.Google Scholar
Teller, P. 1992. “A Contemporary Look at Emergence.” In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism, ed. Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., and Kim, J., 139–54. Foundations of Communication and Cognition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 1973. Theoretical Concepts. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willard, S. 1970. General Topology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 2006. Wandering Significance: An Essay on Conceptual Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar