Abstract:In this paper, we put forward a new account of emergence called "transformational emergence". Such an account captures a variety of emergence that can be considered as being diachronic and weakly ontological. The fact that transformational emergence actually constitutes a genuine form of emergence is motivated. Besides, the account is free of traditional problems surrounding more usual, synchronic versions of emergence, and it can find a strong empirical support in a specific physical phenomenon, the fractiona… Show more
“…First, I provide a general sketch of flat emergence (Section 2) and justify the claim that it is a bona fide variety of the notion (Section 3). I then show that flat emergence is a generalization of some recent accounts of diachronic emergence, among which are Humphreys' (2016) and Guay and Sartenaer's (2016) (Section 4). In Section 5, I highlight some notable features of flat emergence, focusing incidentally on the fact that it vindicates a form of supervenient irreducible causation that is immune to Kim's causal exclusion argument (Section 6).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Following in the footsteps of Humphreys, Guay and Sartenaer recently put forward an alternative account of transformational emergence, which they formulate under the following general model, S 2 emerging from S 1 , and S i being the state of a system at time t i (see Guay and Sartenaer, , p. 303, with a slightly modified notation): (Dependence) S 2 is the product of a spatiotemporally continuous process going from S 1 . In particular, the “realm” to which S 1 and S 2 commonly belong (e.g.…”
Section: Flat Emergence In the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, Guay and Sartenaer wholeheartedly endorse the flat perspective, under which emergence is a diachronic relation connecting same‐level, quasi‐autonomous domains. Moreover, Guay and Sartenaer's account is also at odds with PAC, as when they write (, p. 312): As a consequence of [...] the clause stating that transformationally emergent powers are forbidden to exist, according to natural laws, prior to their emergence, transformationally emergent powers [...] are not the mere manifestation of some initially latent powers of their bases [...].…”
Section: Flat Emergence In the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…But this very fact isn’t inconsistent with anyons having new fundamental powers or being subject to new fundamental laws, as soon as such an explanation doesn’t exclusively exploit – and it doesn’t, because it can’t – features directly relating to their emergence basis (it actually rather exploits topological features of the set‐up together with general considerations of quantum electrodynamics). As Guay and Sartenaer put it (, p. 312, italics in the original): ‘[Transformational emergence entails that] some explanatory paths are forever impracticable – typically the paths going directly from the bases to the emergent –, but not that no explanatory path whatsoever should be available’.…”
Section: Holism Fundamentality Unexplainability and E‐causationmentioning
The main contention of this article is that current approaches to ontological emergence are not comprehensive, in that they share a common bias that make them blind to some conceptual space available to emergence. In this article, I devise an alternative perspective on ontological emergence called ‘flat emergence’, which is free of such a bias. The motivation is twofold: not only does flat emergence constitute another viable way to fulfill the initial emergentist promise, but it also allows for making sense of some emergence ascriptions that traditional accounts are unable to accommodate.
“…First, I provide a general sketch of flat emergence (Section 2) and justify the claim that it is a bona fide variety of the notion (Section 3). I then show that flat emergence is a generalization of some recent accounts of diachronic emergence, among which are Humphreys' (2016) and Guay and Sartenaer's (2016) (Section 4). In Section 5, I highlight some notable features of flat emergence, focusing incidentally on the fact that it vindicates a form of supervenient irreducible causation that is immune to Kim's causal exclusion argument (Section 6).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Following in the footsteps of Humphreys, Guay and Sartenaer recently put forward an alternative account of transformational emergence, which they formulate under the following general model, S 2 emerging from S 1 , and S i being the state of a system at time t i (see Guay and Sartenaer, , p. 303, with a slightly modified notation): (Dependence) S 2 is the product of a spatiotemporally continuous process going from S 1 . In particular, the “realm” to which S 1 and S 2 commonly belong (e.g.…”
Section: Flat Emergence In the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, Guay and Sartenaer wholeheartedly endorse the flat perspective, under which emergence is a diachronic relation connecting same‐level, quasi‐autonomous domains. Moreover, Guay and Sartenaer's account is also at odds with PAC, as when they write (, p. 312): As a consequence of [...] the clause stating that transformationally emergent powers are forbidden to exist, according to natural laws, prior to their emergence, transformationally emergent powers [...] are not the mere manifestation of some initially latent powers of their bases [...].…”
Section: Flat Emergence In the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…But this very fact isn’t inconsistent with anyons having new fundamental powers or being subject to new fundamental laws, as soon as such an explanation doesn’t exclusively exploit – and it doesn’t, because it can’t – features directly relating to their emergence basis (it actually rather exploits topological features of the set‐up together with general considerations of quantum electrodynamics). As Guay and Sartenaer put it (, p. 312, italics in the original): ‘[Transformational emergence entails that] some explanatory paths are forever impracticable – typically the paths going directly from the bases to the emergent –, but not that no explanatory path whatsoever should be available’.…”
Section: Holism Fundamentality Unexplainability and E‐causationmentioning
The main contention of this article is that current approaches to ontological emergence are not comprehensive, in that they share a common bias that make them blind to some conceptual space available to emergence. In this article, I devise an alternative perspective on ontological emergence called ‘flat emergence’, which is free of such a bias. The motivation is twofold: not only does flat emergence constitute another viable way to fulfill the initial emergentist promise, but it also allows for making sense of some emergence ascriptions that traditional accounts are unable to accommodate.
“…Some have presented themselves as pluralist (e.g., Cartwright 1989;Mitchell 2003;Wimsatt 2007;Ruphy 2016) or as "promiscuous" (Dupré 1993), and others have defended ontological emergentism (e.g. Humphreys 1997aHumphreys , 1997bHumphreys , 2008Morrison 2012;Guay and Sartenaer 2016). The view that one given approach is uniquely appropriate and fundamental (in the present case, a metaphysics derived from our best current physical theories) cannot be accepted without demonstration.…”
Several advocates of the lively field of "metaphysics of science" have recently argued that a naturalistic metaphysics should be based solely on current science, and that it should replace more traditional, intuition-based, forms of metaphysics. The aim of the present paper is to assess that claim by examining the relations between metaphysics of science and general metaphysics. We show that the current metaphysical battlefield is richer and more complex than a simple dichotomy between "metaphysics of science" and "traditional metaphysics", and that it should instead be understood as a three dimensional "box", with one axis distinguishing "descriptive metaphysics" from "revisionary metaphysics," a second axis distinguishing a priori from a posteriori metaphysics, and a third axis distinguishing "commonsense metaphysics", "traditional metaphysics" and "metaphysics of science." We use this three-dimensional figure to shed light on the project of current metaphysics of science, and to demonstrate that, in many instances, the target of that project is not defined with enough precision and clarity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
