Strong emergentism is the position that certain higher-level properties display a kind of metaphysical autonomy from the lower-level properties in which they are grounded. The prospect of collapse is a problem for strong emergentism. According to those who press the collapse problem any purportedly strongly emergent feature inheres in the emergence base and so is not genuinely autonomous from that base. Umut Baysan and Jessica Wilson (2017) argue that power emergentism avoids the collapse problem. In this paper, I challenge the claim that power emergentism avoids the collapse problem and argue for explanatory emergentism in its place.

“Actionability” is a key concept in precision oncology. Its precise definition, however, remains contested. This article undertakes a philosophical analysis of “actionability” to aid in conceptual clarification. We map distinct concepts of actionability, arguing that each is best understood as a contextually objective category articulated to mitigate risk of “conceptual slippage.” We defend “interactive pluralism,” acknowledging the need for distinct concepts but also for conceptual interaction in practice. This article thus offers insights for both practitioners and philosophers, clarifying approaches to actionability for scientists and clinicians and serving as a case study to test competing views on scientific pluralism.

This article aims to complement causal model approaches to causal explanation by James Woodward, Joseph Halpern and Judea Pearl, and Michael Strevens. It centers on a strengthened Ramsey Test of conditionals: $\alpha \gg \gamma$ if and only if, after suspending judgment about α and γ, an agent can infer γ from the supposition of α (in the context of further beliefs in the background). Holger Andreas and Mario Günther used this conditional as the starting point of an analysis of ‘because’ in natural language. I refine this analysis so as to yield a fully fledged account of (deterministic) causal explanation.

Piccinini’s usability constraint states that physical processes must have “physically constructible manifestation[s]” to be included in epistemically useful models of physical computation. But to determine what physical processes can be implemented in physical systems (as parts of computations), we must already know what physical processes can be implemented in physical systems (as parts of processes for constructing computing systems). We need additional assumptions about what qualifies as a building process. Piccinini implicitly assumes a classical computational understanding of executable processes, but this is an assumption imposed on physical theories and may artificially limit our picture of epistemically useful physical computation.

In many ways, entropy and probability are two concepts that complement each other. But it has been argued that there is no ‘straightforward connection’ between them with a no-go thesis from Kevin Davey. However, this skeptical conclusion rests on counterexamples that fail to do justice to the entropy principle and the equivocality of the notion of probability. Proceeding from the disambiguation of probability, and acknowledging the explanatory goal of the entropy principle, it is argued that the Boltzmannian statistical mechanics account can be vindicated with a justification of the explanandum, the reference class, and the standard uniform probability measure.

I should like to begin with a remark which, although personal, is not without relevance both to the special topic of this paper and the general purpose of an International Congress of Philosophy. Having had the opportunity of studying and teaching philosophy in various countries of the Western World I have come to realize strongly the enormous power of national traditions in philosophy. Much more so than scientific research and, I believe, even the arts, our philosophizing is tied down to and captivated by particular spiritual climates, particular national traditions. Notwithstanding the apparatus of international congresses, the various personal and professional contacts between philosophers of different nationality, and the translation of at least the most important works into other languages, there is, I have come to feel, a mutual contempt, a mutual misunderstanding, a mutual intolerance, that are frightening. You will remember Nietzsche's sarcasms concerning English philosophy. I have heard Heidegger say that the only language in which one can really philosophize, besides Greek, is German. The German contempt for French clarity and English factuality is equalled by the irony which French and English philosophers show towards German “depth.” The examples could be multiplied. Scrutinize your university programs and I am convinced you will be startled by the enormous emphasis upon philosophers of your own nationality. I know German Ph.D.s who have never read more than 200 pages of English and French philosophy. Courses in contemporary philosophy give usually 90 percent of their time to the philosophical scene in the particular country to which the teachers belongs and only the small remainder to the international scene.

Varieties of chemical and phase equilibria are controlled by the minimum Gibbs energy principle, according to which the Gibbs energy for a system will have the minimum value at any given temperature and pressure. It is understood that the minimum is with respect to all nonequilibrium states at the same temperature and pressure. The abstract relation between Gibbs energy and the equilibrium constant is deduced from fundamental laws of thermodynamics. However, actual use of this relation calls for the Gibbs energy as a function of concentrations of the chemicals. Since thermodynamics is formulated without any reference to materials, how does one get that relation? This article provides the answer, and in the process shows that application of theory to experiments requires several intermediate layers where theory and experiment commingle.

Frank Jackson and Robert Pargetter (1977) propose a method for synchronizing clocks at rest at distant points of an inertial system in Euclidean space, which, they claim, (i) does not depend on Einstein's signalling method (Einstein 1923, pp. 27–29) and (ii) provides a basis for denying the conventionality of distant simultaneity. I am afraid, however, that the new method presupposes that the simultaneity of distant events relatively to the chosen inertial system has been already determined by Einstein's or some other method. Jackson and Pargetter describe their method as follows:

Some philosophers have claimed that one must be acquainted with the elements of one's ontology. Also, believing that substrata and universals are required in an adequate ontology, these philosophers have claimed acquaintance with such objects. This paper attempts to analyze what is involved in such claims and to argue that they result from a number of confusions. The paper deals largely with the claim that substrata, or bare particulars, are presented since numerical difference is a simple fact that is presented. It further attempts to argue that while neither substrata nor universals, as such, are objects of acquaintance, there are some distinctions to be drawn between talk of universals as presented objects and talk of substrata being presented.

The aim of this contribution is to trace the transformation of the meanings of certain terms as the order of the logics in which they appear is raised. By “order of the logic” we simply refer to the number of truth-values characterizing the logic, so that if the number of truth values shows symptoms of traveling to infinity we may speak of the goal as a logic of infinite order.

The following is an analysis of the relationship between incompatibility, conflict and breakdown. It is restricted to situations of a certain sort — to the isolation of the conditions under which breakdowns occur. These conditions are specific and defineable. Under certain circumstances incompatibilities and conflicts culminate in growth, under others in separation, under others in outright destruction of one of the incompatible elements, under others still in dominance-subserviance relationships and under others in breakdown. This is a matter of some importance since influential current conceptions treat incompatibility and conflict as though they were uniform in outcome. The followers of Hegel regard them as always making for growth whereas certain contemporaries (Toynbee and others) look upon them as the prime movers of breakdown and decline. The truth of the matter would seem to be that neither of these theories is correct. Conflicts vary, their consequences vary and the conditions under which they occur vary. For empirical analysis the important thing is the disengagement of the differences making for different culminations as well as the relations common to all; and the working out, as far as possible, of the way in which alterations in certain basic factors make for changes in result. A specific analysis of this sort may be valuable for foresight and even for a degree of control where the conditions are accessible to our manipulation.

In view of the importance of the philosophical method argued in Mr. C. I. Lewis's “Experience and Meaning,” I wish to call attention to ambiguities which may have an important bearing on one of his conclusions. The method for which he argues is a certain empirical test of meaningfulness. It is his ‘positivistic’ inference from this method which I wish to challenge. To do so I shall present four points: (1) A summary of his empirical test of meaningfulness; (2) A ‘non-positivistic’ (or ‘dualistic’) hypothesis which Mr. Lewis rejects; (3) An analysis of this hypothesis in view of his test; (4) The theory of universals implied in my analysis.

The hidden-variables model constructed by Karl Hess and Walter Philipp is claimed by its authors to exploit a “loophole” in Bell's theorem; according to Hess and Philipp, the parameters employed in their model extend beyond those considered by Bell. Furthermore, they claim that their model satisfies Einstein locality and is free of any “suspicion of spooky action at a distance.” Both of these claims are false; the Hess-Philipp model achieves agreement with the quantum-mechanical predictions, not by circumventing Bell's theorem, but via Parameter Dependence.

Like a number of other authors, Miller uses the term “emergent” interchangeably with “unpredictable” and employs it as a property term, i.e., in contexts of the form “Event E is emergent.” As we showed in our article, however, predictability and unpredictability as well as emergence are relations; they can be predicated of an event only relatively to some body of information. Thus, a lunar eclipse is predictable by means of information including (a) data on the locations and speeds, at some particular time, of the celestial bodies involved, and (b) the laws of celestial mechanics plus certain principles of optics; it is unpredictable on the basis of, say, (b) alone. Consequently, the phrase “Event E is unpredictable” is incomplete, and hence meaningless, in much the same sense as the expression “Straight line l is parallel.” Similar observations apply to the term “emergent,” which is frequently used to characterize events which, in a sense examined in detail in our article, are not explainable by a micro-structure theory.

In this article I discuss various humility theses about individuals and intrinsic properties as discussed by authors such as David Lewis. I argue that we should accept a similar humility thesis about the world’s space-time structure regardless of which metaphysics of space-time we accept. I argue this undercuts some important motivations opting in for an ontic structural realist metaphysic.