Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:14:02.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergence, Reduction, and Theoretical Principles: Rethinking Fundamentalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Margaret Morrison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many of the arguments against reductionism and fundamental theory as a method for explaining physical phenomena focus on the role of models as the appropriate vehicle for this task. While models can certainly provide us with a good deal of explanatory detail, problems arise when attempting to derive exact results from approximations. In addition, models typically fail to explain much of the stability and universality associated with critical point phenomena and phase transitions, phenomena sometimes referred to as “emergent.” The paper examines the connection between theoretical principles like spontaneous symmetry breaking and emergent phenomena and argues that new ways of thinking about emergence and fundamentalism are required in order to account for the behavior of many phenomena in condensed matter and other areas of physics.

Type
Reduction, Emergence, and Condensed Matter Physics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Miriam Solomon , December 2006 , pp. 876 - 887
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, P. W. (1972), “More Is Different,” Science 177:393–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, P. (1997), “How Properties Emerge,” Philosophy of Science 64:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1999), “Making Sense of Emergence,” Philosophical Studies 95:3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, R. B. (1999), “Nobel Lecture: Fractional Quantization,” Reviews of Modern Physics 71:863–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, R. B., and Pines, D. (2000), “The Theory of Everything,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 97:28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, L. (1999), “The Reduction (?) of Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics,” Philosophical Studies 95:187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stormer, H. (1999), “Nobel Lecture: The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect,” Reviews of Modern Physics 71:875–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1992), “A Contemporary Look at Emergence,” in Beckerman, A., Flohr, H., and Kim, J. (eds.), Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism. Berlin: de Gruyter, 139–153.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1986), “Superconductivity for Particular Theorists,” Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 86:43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1987), “Newtonianism, Reductionism and the Art of Congressional Testimony,” Nature 330:433–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1996), The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 2, Modern Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, K. G. (1983), “The Renormalization Group and Critical Phenomena,” Reviews of Modern Physics 47:583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar