METAONTOLOGY, EMERGENCE AND THEORY CHOICE: IN DEFENCE OF MEREOLOGICAL NIHILISM. Richard Laurence John Caves Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Philosophy, Religion and the History of Science September 2014 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. © 2014 The University of Leeds and Richard Laurence John Caves The right of Richard Laurence John Caves to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, whom I am grateful to for fully funding the first three years of my doctoral studies. (Initial preparation for my PhD was begun during my PhD-track M.A., which was fully funded by the University of Leeds Collection of Small Endowed Awards.) This research was also supported by many, many individual human beings, in one way or another, and I owe you all a huge debt of thanks: Firstly, I must thank my (main) supervisors, Elizabeth Barnes and Ross Cameron, for your unwavering support and crucial guidance (including, but not limited to, insightful feedback, challenging supervisions, and occasional much-needed pep talks). You were my teachers long before you were my supervisors: my intellectual debt to both of you runs unfathomably deep, as does my gratitude for your generosity of time, patience, understanding, kindness and encouragement. You have been role models to me as philosophers, as teachers and as people. Next I must also, of course, thank my other supervisor – John Divers – for keeping a weather eye on my progress: our annual meetings were always incredibly valuable and your support in the final months (with the absence of Ross and Elizabeth) indispensable. I would like to thank all the other staff at Leeds, and many visiting academics, for helpful comments, support and advice, here and there, over the years— particularly regulars of the CMM seminar. If I attempt to name names exhaustively, I‘ll be setting myself up to fail: the number of people who made small but significant contributions is too great for my measly powers of recall to handle accurately. Nonetheless, Heather Logue must get a mention for supervising my M.A. dissertation and PhD proposal. Also, Scott Shalkowski and Jason Turner for helpful discussion and constructive criticism at my transfer meeting. Robbie Williams, too, for little things with a sum greater than the parts. My conversations with Ted Sider and Agustín Rayo (primarily during small graduate discussion groups) have proved especially helpful with respect to a number of issues relevant to the thesis. Chronologically last, but by no means least, Christopher Daly - and Scott Shalkowski again - should be thanked for incisive and thought-provoking discussion in my viva, and for help with editing. Invaluable for their enlightened conversation and moral support: the past and present postgraduates of Leeds – philosophers, philosophers of science and historians of science Acknowledgements ii alike. Again, too many names. However, for helpful discussions or comments, at one point or another, directly relevant to the thesis, I should mention: Sarah Adams, Jonathan Banks, Michael Bench-Capon, Thomas Brouwer, Kerry McKenzie, Robert Pezet and David Race. And probably many others, including visiting postgraduate speakers, and regular audience members of the Leeds PG Seminar who are not on the above list – my apologies as well as my thanks. I should add to the above Jade Fletcher, for keeping me on my toes with respect to matters metametaphysical – may you have an easier time grappling with these issues in your doctoral studies than I did! Meanwhile, extra special thanks is due David Cornell for extensive discussion of our respective partially overlapping thesis topics: when we agreed, it was reassuring; when we disagreed, I think we both profited from the exchange. Also, Danielle Adams for last minute proof reading and much needed encouragement. Extra-extra special thanks goes to Ali(s) Kay for always challenging me to think truer and more interesting things. While last, but determinately not least, extra-extra-extra special thanks is to be heaped upon Carl Warom for frequent in-depth discussions on many pertinent subjects – often bordering on shameless procrastination – throughout the past four years. I‘m infinitely indebted to him for reading every single word in this thesis (many tokens more than once), providing invaluable constructive criticism and going above and beyond in attempting to keep me sane through the final weeks and days of the writing up process. Very soon, I hope to be able to repay this infinite debt in kind. Beyond the PG Room, I would also like to thank Andrew Sellers for his advice and instruction in matters of fundamental physics (and if, as likely, I‘ve slipped up on any physics related issues in these pages it is certainly in spite of, rather than because of, his best efforts to educate me.) Thanks also to my friends outside the philosophy ecosystem, especially: Marcos – my old and dear friend. The things I‘m indebted to you for are too many to count (yet somehow you are still managing to keep a tab). But I guess here is the place to thank you for being the sounding board for the crazy metaphysical views I formed long before I was trained in academic philosophy. Shanti – for keeping me sane with regular provision of delicious snacks and awesome classic T.V. shows. I set out on this project with the aim of defending your favoured view that everything is One: I apologise that the final results were a little more ambiguous, if not downright contrary. And, of course, my family: Metaontology, Emergence and Theory Choice: Richard L. J. Caves Acknowledgements iii My parents, Helen and Laurence: this thesis would never have been written without you, for more than just the obvious reasons. Thanks for putting up with a child who would talk your ear off about the paradoxes of the divine attributes and the possibility of mereological gunk from a ridiculously young age: you have always been loving, patient and encouraging. My Uncle Gareth: Our long walks and philosophical debates were a defining feature of my childhood. Thanks for always keeping my interest in the big questions alive. (To my Other Uncle: I haven‘t seen you around much lately, but I‘m thrilled that you‘re reading!) Thank you to my new in-laws, Dave and Edie, for believing in me in every way. And a huge thank you to the rest of my wonderful family – my grandparents and my siblings (Jeanette, Beryl, Robin, Christiana, Amy and Alex) – for your love and your support. Here I should give special mention to my late grandfather, John, who always pushed me to pursue my dreams, even in his last days. Finally, yet most importantly: all my deepest love and thanks goes to Zoe, my wife and my soul mate, for sharing in this great journey, along with all its uplifting moments and heavy burdens— I look forward to continuing our journey together, long into the future, in expectation of all the joyful and exciting things to come. S.S. Warburg puts it best, I think you‘ll agree: When I think something is important, you think it‘s important too. We have good ideas… sometimes we have good luck and sometimes we don‘t… I never met anyone sillier than me until I met you… I don‘t know why I like you. But I do. (To the people I‘ve undoubtedly missed: again, I can only offer my humble apologies along with my sincere gratitude.)1 1 In postscript, let me note that I‘m also immensely indebted to several non-human persons: Dr Tiny – my constant companion, who completed seven doggie PhDs in the time it took me to write this thesis. Without you by my side throughout this process, I would have spent many hundreds of hours alone. Master Maestro – you weren‘t even born yet when I embarked on this journey, but you have brought so much joy and excitement (and much needed additional exercise) to my life this past year. Marley the Ferret (a.k.a. ―Bendy-Dog‖) – you are the most intrinsically hilarious creature on the face of the Earth and probably beyond. Thanks for keeping me amused. Lilly, Morris & Cleo – One can never have too many paws about the place. Your paws are all, without exception, exceptional. Dylan – Thank you for the long walks and trying to teach Maestro how to behave. Getting to see you is always a treat for both of us (usually in the literal sense for you). Willow – my fourth and furriest supervisor. That I couldn‘t possibly say you are also my favourite supervisor does not mean that it is not, in fact, the case. In Defence of Mereological Nihilism. University of Leeds Abstract iv Abstract This thesis offers detailed remarks on debates in metametaphysics, the question of ontological emergence and the merits of extra-empirical theory choice criteria, such as ontological and ideological parsimony, in the course of defending Mereological Nihilism (nihilism). Part I is primarily a discussion of the metaontology of the composition debate and how nihilism begins to look like a more attractive theory once a certain metaontological framework is adopted. §‎0. provides an overview of the background assumptions of my thesis and outlines the dialectical strategy I will be employing.