Composition

Korman, Daniel Z.; Carmichael, Chad

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.9

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 For example, it promises to give a new answer to the famous composition question, namely under what conditions material objects compose a further object. There are many attempts to answer the composition question, but a satisfactory answer is hard to come by, especially for the middle position that things compose but not always (see Korman and Carmichael 2016). The case of confinement gives some hint in that direction: there is a rigorous sense in which gluons and quarks compose hadrons.…”

Section: What Is the Eft Approach To Physics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this challenge can be met more easily than in the case of EQG because the references to classical background matter fields in arbitrarily small regions can be truncated-unlike classical metrics, classical matter fields are not part of the framework for EFTs. 21 What's more troublesome, like EQG, other EFTs also involve a classical background metric field, which is likewise involved in calculating the energy of matter fields. For example, we may similarly interpret QFTs as describing certain particles propagating in classical Minkowski spacetime (or some suitably curved spacetime), which is defined to arbitrary accuracy.…”

Section: A General Challenge To Effective Realismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can we “effectivize” spacetime?

Chen

2022

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: What Is the Eft Approach To Physics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A General Challenge To Effective Realismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can we “effectivize” spacetime?

Chen

2022

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Markosian 2014and Korman and Carmichael (2016) claim that regionalism follows from (STP). In fact, neither (Reg !! )…”

Section: Countermodelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One might complain (with Korman and Carmichael 2016) that this makes regionalism uninformative. Again, regionalism doesn't tell us which regions have complex material objects located at them and thus doesn't tell us whether any particular objects compose a further object.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composition and the Logic of Location: An Argument for Regionalism

Gilmore

Leonard

2018

Mind

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ned Markosian (2014) has recently defended a new theory of composition, which he calls regionalism: some material objects xx compose something if and only if there is a material object located at the fusion of the locations of xx. Markosian argues that regionalism follows from what he calls the subregion theory of parthood (STP). Korman and Carmichael (2016) agree. We provide countermodels to show that regionalism does not follow from (STP), even together with fourteen potentially implicit background principles. We then show that regionalism does follow from five of those background principles together with (STP) and two additional principles connecting parthood and location, which we call (Overlap) and (Strong Delegation). While the additional principles are not uncontroversial, our conjecture is that many will find them attractive. We conclude by mentioning that (Strong Delegation) fills a previously unnoticed gap in the formal theory of location presented in Parsons (2007).

show abstract

What is Matter in Aristotle's Hylomorphism?

Pfeiffer

2021

Ancient Philosophy Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aristotle's notion of matter has been seen either as unintelligible, it being some mysterious potential entity that is nothing in its own right, or as simply the notion of an everyday object. The latter is the common assumption in contemporary approaches to hylomorphism, but as has been pointed out, especially by scholars with a background in ancient philosophy, if we conceive of matter as an object itself we cannot account for the unity of hylomorphic substances. Thus, they assume that a hylomorphic substance is an essential unity and matter not a constituent at all. This solution to the problem of unity, however, brings us back to the mysterious notion of matter. For these reasons, I will revisit Aristotle's conception of matter in this paper. I will argue that an understanding of form as a cause of being requires that matter be an independent constituent of the individual substance. However, I agree that the conception of matter as an individual object with an essence makes it impossible to solve the problem of unity. We therefore need to take seriously Aristotle's assertion that matter is nothing in its own right and not an individual. By denying that matter is an individual, Aristotle does not introduce a mysterious entity, nor does he deny that it can be identified independently of the whole; instead, matter for Aristotle is an irreducible plurality, and this explains why it is not an individual and has no essence. I will conclude with some observations on how this gives rise to two competing versions of hylomorphic constitution.

show abstract

Composition

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Can we “effectivize” spacetime?

Can we “effectivize” spacetime?

Composition and the Logic of Location: An Argument for Regionalism

What is Matter in Aristotle's Hylomorphism?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About