João Cordovil

This edited book is the outcome of a conference that was planned to take place in Lisbon at the Centro de Filosofia das Ciências (CFCUL) of the Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa. It was originally organized in the usual on-site form to which we were accustomed before the start of the Covid pandemic. The conference was postponed many times, with the hope to hold it on-site, to no avail. After many postponements, to our disappointment, the conference had unfortunately to be organized in a purely online form between 14th and 15th of October in 2021. The only advantage of all this is that we saved public money.

According to Kuhlmann & Glennan, fundamental physics and New Mechanicism do “not fit well together” (Kuhlmann and Glennan, Euro J Phil Sci 4:338, 2014). For two main reasons: (1) Quantum mechanics (QM) challenges the hypothesis that there are objects with definite properties that are related by local causal interactions; (2) since mechanisms are composed of lower-lever mechanisms, then if in fundamental physics the existence of mechanisms can be questioned, and if macroscopic mechanisms supervene on fundamental physics entities and processes, then fundamental physics can even undermine mechanistic ontology and its explanatory ambition.In their paper, Kuhlmann & Glennan tried to argue that the problem of the compatibilisation between fundamental physics and New Mechanicism can be partially addressed since, on the one hand, the quantum decoherence hypothesis allows to defend that the universal validity of quantum mechanics does not undermine New Mechanicism ontological and explanatory claims as they occur within in classical domains. And on the other hand, it is possible to offer a non-classical mechanistic explanation of certain kinds of quantum phenomena.This paper aims to argue that there has always been a problematic relationship between mechanical philosophy and fundamental physics throughout the history of physics. Therefore, in part, the challenges posed by QM to mechanicism are not new; nevertheless, mechanicism prevailed throughout the history of physics. On the other hand, I also aim to argue that although fundamental physics may not be compatible with New Mechanicism, that should not imply a rejection of mechanistic ontology for reasons other than the quantum decoherence hypothesis.

This Open Access book addresses the epistemological and ontological significance as well as the scope of new mechanism. In particular, this book addresses the issues of what is "new" about new mechanism, the epistemological and ontological reasons underlying the adoption of mechanistic instead of other modelling strategies as well as the possibility of mechanistic explanation to accommodate a non-trivial notion of emergence. Arguably, new mechanism has been particularly successful in making sense of scientific practice in the molecular life sciences. But what about other sciences? This book enlarges the context of analysis, addressing the issue of the putative compatibility between the current ways of conceiving new mechanism and actual scientific practices in quantum physics, chemistry, biochemistry, developmental biology and the cognitive sciences.

While ontic structural realism (OSR) has been a central topic in contemporary philosophy of science, the relation between OSR and the concept of emergence has received little attention. We will argue that OSR is fully compatible with emergentism. The denial of ontological emergence requires additional assumptions that, strictly speaking, go beyond OSR. We call these _physicalist closure assumptions._ We will explain these assumptions and show that they are independent of the central commitments of OSR and inconsistent with its core goals. Recognizing the compatibility of OSR and ontological emergence may contribute to the solution of ontological puzzles in physics while offering new ways to achieve the goals that advocates of OSR set for their view.

Como é bem sabido, o problema da medição é um problema antigo – talvez mesmo o único problema - da Mecânica Quântica ou, pelo menos, de sua interpretação. Grosso modo, o problema da medição surge da transição de um sistema em Mecânica Quântica de um estado de superposição para um estado bem definido. Ou seja, da transição de um sistema num estado “quântico” para um “estado clássico”. Como também é bem conhecido, várias são as tentativas de solução para o problema de medição. Apesar de existir uma vasta gama de opções, a maioria das soluções apresentadas assume o pressuposto que a Mecânica Quântica é aplicável, em princípio, universalmente; isto é, a todos sistemas físicos. No entanto, talvez possamos questionar essa suposição e talvez essa suposição seja o que torna o problema de medição problemático. Este artigo tem como objetivo i) analisar o pressuposto da universalidade da aplicabilidade da Mecânica Quântica e consequências para a formulação do problema da medição; ii) explorar a ideia de que as entidades clássicas não são ontologicamente redutíveis, mas emergentes de entidades quânticas.

Traditionally, Physics has been dominated by the image of objects, that is, by the atomistic metaphysics of absolutely intrinsic properties of qualitatively unchangeable individual entities. The first major challenge to this metaphysics inside physics comes with quantum mechanics, specifically with the well-known phenomenon known as ‘quantum entanglement’. From quantum entanglement it seems that we can conclude that: quantum objects are not independent entities; wholes have an ontological priority over their parts. However, it is arguable that is too risky to infer such conclusions directly from quantum mechanics. If epistemological consequences of quantum mechanics are inescapable, is seems unwise to take any direct ontological consequences from it. After all, quantum mechanics does not refer to the states of physical entities before measurements, but it is just a theory that allows us to calculate the possible outcomes from any given measurement. Still, this does not mean that, indirectly, quantum mechanics does not give some account of quantum reality that deeply challenges traditional objects metaphysics, namely, through the simple existence of the measurement problem; and through the experimental violations of Bell inequality. Even challenged, the object picture in physics can thus prevail. But we must also not forget that on the last decades, Quantum Physics has being evolved beyond the direct scope of quantum mechanics. I will try to argue that in at least some contemporary approaches in Quantum Physics we can see that there is a movement pointing towards a relational ontological view, according to which the ontological primacy is not to be given to individual entities, as self-sufficient elements with their own intrinsic and immutable identities—as in traditional object’s metaphysics—but to some sort of relational structures. I argue that although this relational metaphysics is still to be developed, it will have to be able to account for both the relational and object natures of quantum entities.