Andrea Roselli

The notion of emergence in philosophy is standardly taken to perform the metaphysical task of accommodating leveled structure: a 'vertical' relation between levels that explains the co-temporal dependence and novelty of e.g. biological entities with respect to their physical particles (life emerges from Carbon in the sense that it depends on Carbon atoms, but has a sort of higher-level autonomy). However, many authors have alternatively argued for a diachronic notion of emergence, where the relation is 'horizontal' in the sense that it is between same-level, but temporally successive, states. Wilson (2024) has recently put forward a challenge: what is the difference between diachronic emergence and causation? If there is no difference in the metaphysical task performed, there is no reason to take diachronic emergence seriously. In this paper, we show that there are at least two (non-mutually exclusive) different ways to characterize diachronic emergence as a determinative relation clearly distinct from causation: the first criterion is epistemic (with ontological import), the second is strictly ontological. We also provide concrete examples from the philosophy of science and show cases of the fruitfulness of this metaphysical notion.

This paper is meant to offer a better understanding of the philosophical view called 'powers ontology' and its relevance to science. After briefly discussing on the one hand the intuitive pull of dispositional notions and their application in science (micro-physics in particular), and on the other hand the metaphysical and epistemological issues typically arising from the application of powers in science, we defend a dynamic notion of the dispositional essence, where the individuation of the power does not the depend on the manifestations brought about by a certain activity, nor the stimulus conditions enabling such activity, but on the very activity itself. In the last part of the paper, we discuss two cases of theoretical unification in early 20th century physics: Einstein’s equivalence principle and de Broglie wave-particle duality principle. We show how a powers ontology, intended in the sense described above, would be able to elegantly account for how these unifications were achieved and why they were successful.

According to the leading hypothesis in primordial cosmology, the very early universe underwent a rapid phase of accelerated expansion known as cosmological inflation. Inflation ended approximately 10^{−34} s after the expansion began, through a process called reheating, during which the inflaton field decayed into the particles of the Standard Model. In this paper, we do not address questions concerning the empirical adequacy of this cosmological scenario. Instead, we focus on two following questions: 1. According to inflationary cosmology, can we argue that the particles of the Standard Model emerged from the inflaton field, and in what sense? 2. If we claim that the interaction carriers of the Standard Model (e.g., gluons) emerged during reheating, does this imply that the laws governing these interactions (e.g., the strong nuclear force) emerged at the same time? We argue that current models of reheating already provide a clear answer to the first question when interpreted through a diachronic account of emergence. However, the second question may not have a definitive answer, as it depends on one’s metaphysical conception of physical laws. We propose that a powers ontology, according to which laws are based on the causal profile of fundamental dispositional properties, could elegantly accommodate the claim that physical laws emerged in the wake of inflation.

Powers are properties defined by what they do. The focus of the large majority of the powers literature has been mainly put on explicating the (multifaceted) results of the production of a power in certain (multifaceted) initial conditions: but all this causal complexity is bound to be—and, in fact, it has proved to be—quite difficult to handle. In this paper we take a different approach by focusing on the very activity of producing those multifaceted manifestations themselves. In this paper, we propose an original account of what the essence of a power consists in which stems from a radical reconceptualisation of power-causation according to which counterfactuals are to be explained away by powers, and not vice-versa. We call this approach the dynamical operator account of powers. According to this account, the causal role of powers consists in their ensuring that the ontological transition from a stimulus S to a manifestation M happens. Powers thus have a dynamical essence which consists in the fundamental activity of generating the counterfactuals typically associated with them. We show that if one conceptualises this functional activity as the metaphysical fulcrum around which counterfactual-based causation revolves, one is granted not only an improved methodology to individuate powers but also a better understanding of their knowability, modality and directedness.

This book brings together twelve original contributions by leading scholars on the much-debated issues of what is free will and how can we exercise it in a world governed by laws of nature. Which conception of laws of nature best fits with how we conceive of free will? And which constraints does our conception of the laws of nature place on how we think of free will? The metaphysics of causation and the metaphysics of dispositions are also explored in this edited volume, in relation to whether they may or may not be game-changers in how we think about both free will and the laws of nature. The volume presents the views of a range of international experts on these issues, and aims at providing the reader with novel approaches to a core problem in philosophy. The target audience is composed by academics and scholars who are interested in an original and contemporary approach to these long-debated issues. Chapters [2] and [4] are available open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License via link.springer.com.

After a brief presentation of the Verisimilitudinarian approach to scientific progress, I argue that the notion of estimated verisimilitude is too weak for the purposes of scientific realism. Despite the realist-correspondist intuition that inspires the model—the idea that our theories get closer and closer to ‘the real way the world is’—, Bayesian estimations of truthlikeness are not objective enough to sustain a realist position. The main argument of the paper is that, since estimated verisimilitude is not connected to actual verisimilitude, the way the Verisimilitudinarian account works is not in the end different from other antirealist accounts. Finally, I briefly present Alexander Bird’s cumulative approach to scientific progress, and argue that it has a similar problem; Bird has in mind truth in the correspondence sense, but all the metaphysical weight is put on the notion of ‘approximate truth’—whose connection to ‘the real way the world is’ is not clear.

The Verisimilitudinarian approach to scientific progress (VS, for short) is traditionally considered a realist-correspondist model to explain the proximity of our best scientific theories to the way things really are in the world out there (ʻthe Truthʻ, with the capital ʻtʻ). However, VS is based on notions, such as ʻestimated verisimilitudeʻ or ʻapproximate truthʻ, that dilute the model in a functionalist-like theory. My thesis, then, is that VS tries to incorporate notions, such as ʻprogressʻ, in a pre-constituted metaphysical conception of the world, but fails in providing a fitting framework. The main argument that I will develop to support this claim is that the notions that they use to explain scientific progress (ʻestimated verisimilitudeʻ or ʻapproximate truthʻ) have nothing to do with ʻthe Truthʻ. After presenting Cevolani and Tamboloʻs answer (2013) to Birdʻs arguments (2007), I will claim that VS sacrifices the realist-correspondist truth in favor of an epistemic notion of truth, which can obviously be compatible with certain kinds of realism but not with the one the authors have in mind (the correspondence between our theories and the way things really are).

Si mostra come la celebre disputa tra Einstein e Bohr riguardi i concetti di realtà retrostanti le loro relative concezioni della realtà fisica; conseguentemente, viene suggerita una significativa connessione tra le teorie di Copenaghen e la relatività einsteiniana. Bohr considerava la descrizione della realtà offerta dalla meccanica quantistica completa; Einstein, al contrario, continuava a cercare una teoria deterministica. Quando nel 1935 Einstein, Podolsky e Rosen pubblicarono il famoso EPR, Bohr replicò centrando l’attenzione sul ragionevole criterio di realtà proposto dagli autori, rimarcando l’inconsistenza concettuale dell’esistenza indipendente di un costitutivo “inconoscibile”. La fisica, attraverso la grande lezione epistemologica – come era solito dirne Niels Bohr – rappresentata dalla MQ, si trovava di fronte ad una capitale questione filosofica: che cosa è la realtà? Viene infine suggerita una giustapposizione della problematizzazione einsteiniana del concetto di simultaneità e del carattere reciproco delle misurazioni quantomeccaniche esposto da Bohr, che suggerisce l’abbandono dell’ultimo grande assoluto: una realtà assoluta.

This volume offers a fresh exploration of the parts-whole relations within a power and among powers. While the metaphysics of powers has been extensively examined in the literature, powers have yet to be studied from the perspective of their mereology. Powers are often assumed to be atomic; and yet what they can do--and what can happen to them--is complex. But if powers are simple, how can they have complex manifestations? Can powers have parts? According to which rules of composition do powers compose into powers? Given the centrality of powers in current scientific as well as philosophical thought, recognizing and understanding the ontological differences between atomic and mereologically complex powers is important, for both philosophy and science. The first section of this book explores how powers divide; the second section how powers compose. The final section showcases some specific study cases in the domains of quantum mechanics and psychology. Powers, Parts and Wholes will be of interest to professional philosophers and graduate students working in metaphysics, philosophy of science and logic.

What is the Specious Present? Which is its duration? And why, ultimately, do we need it to figure in our phenomenological account of temporal perception? In this paper, after introducing the role of the Specious Present in the main models that account for our phenomenological present, and after considering the deflationary objection by Dennett (that the debate relies on the fallacy of the Cartesian Theatre of Mind, the idea that it is meaningful to ask where and when an experience becomes conscious), I claim—thanks to a spatial analogy—that there could be a good criterion to distinguish between a present experience and a past experience, that there are good reasons to sustain the Specious Present (while snapshots are in no sense part of our phenomenological life), and that there could be a precise way to define the nature—and to measure the duration—of the Specious Present; as I will clarify, our capability and possibility to act and react are central in this perspective. If we accept this change of perspective, there is a definite sense in which the Specious Present is part of our temporal phenomenology.