Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 12-7-2011 12:00 AM Emergence and Reduction in Science. A Case Study Alexandru Manafu The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Dr. Robert Batterman The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Philosophy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Alexandru Manafu 2011 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Manafu, Alexandru, "Emergence and Reduction in Science. A Case Study" (2011). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 345. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/345 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EMERGENCE AND REDUCTION IN SCIENCE. A CASE STUDY (Spine title: Emergence and Reduction in Science. A Case Study) (Thesis format: Monograph) by Alexandru Manafu Graduate Program in Philosophy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada © Alexandru Manafu 2011 THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION Supervisor Examiners ______________________ ______________________ Dr. Robert Batterman Dr. Sandra Mitchell Supervisory Committee ______________________ Dr. Marc-André Lachance ______________________ ______________________ Dr. Gillian Barker Dr. Gillian Barker ______________________ ______________________ Dr. Christopher Smeenk Dr. Christopher Smeenk The thesis by Alexandru Manafu entitled: Emergence and Reduction in Science. A Case Study is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy __________________ _______________________ Date Chair of the Thesis Examination Board ii Abstract The past decade or so has witnessed an increase in the number of philo- sophical discussions about emergence and reduction in science. However, many of these discussions (though not all) remain too abstract and theoretical, and are wanting with respect to concrete examples taken from the sciences. This dissertation studies the topics of reduction and emergence in the context of a case study. I focus on the case of chemistry and investigate how emergentism can help us secure the autonomy of this discipline in relation to the underlying microphysics. I develop an account of emergence (called functional emergence) that is, I argue, capable of answering the question of why we have chemistry instead of just applied quantum mechanics. I argue that functionally emergent properties in chemistry – properties that are defined by their behaviour, not by some shared microphysical constituent – can help us defend the autonomy of chemistry; they allow for the existence of sui generis chemical regularities, which can be used in sui generis chemical explanations. Functional emergence generates difficulties for some accounts of inter-theoretic reduction, but unlike other theories of emergence it is compatible with weaker forms of reductionism. Keywords: emergence, reductionism, ontological autonomy, functional properties, constitutive properties, functional kinds, multiple realization, physics, chemistry, special sciences, micro-reduction, functional reduction, chemical properties, chemical laws, chemical explanations. iii Acknowledgments I thank Robert Batterman, my supervisor and mentor, who provided me with guidance and help; Chris Smeenk and Gillian Barker for discussion and feedback; Sorin Bangu for long and interesting philosophical exchanges; Nic Fillion, for technical help with LATEX; Guillaume Beaulac for coming up with an illuminating paraphrase; the members of the Rotman Institute, especially those who read my work in the philosophy of science reading group; James Overton, Matthew Ivanowich, Jason Marsh and the members of the ABD support group for discussion and feedback; Daniel Dennett, for endorsing my project and helping me see the “real patterns”. And I thank my wife, Monica, for support and for being so hard to convince. iv List of Tables 3.1 Microphysical description of alcohols. 81 4.1 List of sui generis chemical laws. 125 v List of Figures 2.1.1 Configurational forces and the conservation of energy. 33 2.2.1 Two overlapping dichotomies between properties........ 42 2.2.2 Triplet oxygen vs. singlet oxygen................. 52 3.3.1 Quartz unit cell. 90 3.3.2 Different views of a quartz unit cell. 90 4 – 3.3.3 A deformed SiO4 tetrahedron. 91 3.3.4 Sphalerite unit cell. 92 3.3.5 The electric double layer. 95 3.3.6 An experimental setup to show interfacial piezoelectricity due to the streaming current in gel or liquid. 96 3.3.7 The electric field pattern between the electrodes generated in the gel or liquid. 96 3.3.8 A cubic sample cut from a long bone. 99 3.3.9 The alpha-helix of polypeptides. 100 3.3.10 Bent femur bone. 101 vi Contents Certificate of Examination ii Abstract iii Acknowledgments iv List of Tables v List of Figures vi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The question . .1 1.2 Tentative answers . .3 1.2.1 Historical autonomy . .3 1.2.2 Methodological autonomy . .4 1.2.3 Antireductionism . .5 1.2.4 Internal realism . .6 1.2.5 Emergentism . .9 1.3 What is needed? . 13 1.4 Overview . 14 2 Accounts of emergence in chemistry 17 2.1 The British emergentist view of chemistry . 17 2.1.1 Broad’s view of chemistry . 18 2.1.2 Evaluating Broad’s account of emergence in chemistry 24 2.1.3 Conclusion . 34 2.2 The prospects for fusion emergence in chemistry . 36 2.2.1 Humphreys’ fusion emergence.............. 36 2.2.2 Previous criticisms of fusion emergence......... 39 2.2.3 The division of labor between properties and the notion of a physical operation.................. 41 vii 2.2.4 Humphreys’ examples.................. 43 2.2.5 Questioning the ionic-covalent dichotomy........ 45 2.2.6 The level-relativeness of fusion.............. 47 2.2.7 Entanglement to the rescue?............... 51 2.2.8 Conclusion......................... 53 2.3 Other contemporary accounts . 54 3 Functional emergence 63 3.1 Constitutive vs. functional properties . 66 3.1.1 The distinction between constitutive and functional prop- erties . 66 3.1.2 Functional properties and multiple realization . 73 3.1.3 Constitutive vs. dispositional, constitutive vs. relational 74 3.2 Constitutive properties in chemistry . 75 3.3 Functional properties in chemistry . 81 3.3.1 Acids and bases . 81 3.3.2 Oxidants and reductants . 84 3.3.3 Piezoeletrics . 87 3.3.3.1 Piezoelectricity in crystals . 89 3.3.3.2 Streaming current as a source of piezoelectricity 94 3.3.3.3 Piezoelectricity in bone . 98 3.3.3.4 A philosophical disagreement among scientists 102 3.3.3.5 “Promiscuous” laws . 104 3.3.3.6 Conclusion . 106 3.3.4 Other functional properties in chemistry . 106 3.3.5 Are constitutive definitions impossible? . 107 4 Functional emergence and reductionisms 113 4.1 Nagelian reduction . 114 4.2 Micro-reduction . 126 4.3 Functional reduction . 137 5 A defense of functional emergence 143 5.1 Shapiro’s challenge . 143 5.2 Kim’s argument from two metaphysical principles . 154 5.3 The argument from the general failure of special-science causal closure and the argument from the idiosyncratic nature of spe- cial science properties . 163 5.4 The analyticity objection . 171 viii 6 Conclusions 185 Bibliography 193 Curriculum Vitae 205 ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The question If all there is consists of the kinds of entities that microphysics talks about, why do we have sciences other than microphysics? This thesis is an attempt to answer a question of this sort. But why should this question even be taken seriously, let alone be considered worthy of investigation? What are the prima facie motives for asking it in the first place? There are two motives for asking this question. First, there is an ontologi- cal motive, which rests on the asymmetry between the objects that form the subject matter of microphysics and the objects that form the subject matter of the other sciences (the special sciences). The asymmetry is this: if all the objects that form the subject matter of microphysics (elementary particles, fields, etc.) were to vanish, there would be nothing left; the objects that form the subject matter of the special sciences (molecules, organisms, etc.) will also vanish. They will necessarily disappear, for they are composed of the kinds of entities that microphysics talk about. However, if the objects that form the subject matter of the special sciences were to vanish, the objects that form the subject matter of microphysics may persist (e.g., as plasma). This asymmetry results simply from the direction of the composition re- lation: the objects that form the subject matter of the special sciences are composed of the objects that form the subject matter of microphysics, but not 1 viceversa. As a result, the latter may exist even in the absence of the former. In this narrow and precise sense then, the microphysical has ontological primacy. This prompts the following question. If one had a complete science of the microphysical (i.e., a complete inventory of all the microphysical entities and properties, and the laws governing them) couldn’t one just deduce the claims made by the special sciences? This is the other motive underlying the question formulated at the beginning, and I will call it the epistemological motive. As it stands, the question formulated above is too general. If the question is to be investigated in detail, it needs further specification. I will specify the question by referring to a couple of specific sciences that are usually perceived as adjacent, such as quantum mechanics and chemistry.