nucleation

THEORY-1293: Given that every change in a phenomenon is simultaneously realized by some constituent on every lower level, that simultaneous changes are not causally related, that co-occurrence is transitive, and that the parts and their levels are already known, a single intervention that changes a part and the phenomenon simultaneously while directly changing at most one behaviour on each lower level shows that the part is a constituent; the condition presupposes the boundary and the level hierarchy it is applied to and cannot supply them

3 min read

Properties5
StatusActive
Tagsphilosophy-of-science, causality, mereology
SourceLIT-1924 — Horizontal Surgicality and Mechanistic Constitution
Bears onQUESTION-284 — In any domain, when do the constraints on an entity's relations only characterize an entity individuated without them, and when do they partly constitute its identity, its boundary or what it can do; and are a boundary a process detects, one it maintains and one it constitutes three different things?
Cited as “grounds” byARG-050 — An intervention that disables a production pathway inside a declared boundary, or interrupts an outside controller, locates the producer of a maintained organization, because the pathway causes the capacities with a delay and can be intervened on surgically, so the fat-handedness of interventions on wholes does not reach the inference, CLAIM-528 — That a mechanism realizes a capacity can mean that the capacity is produced through it over time or that the capacity consists in it at a time, and interventions show only the first: a pathway whose disabling changes the capacity after a delay is a cause, can be intervened on surgically, and can be located relative to a declared boundary, whereas every intervention on a capacity that consists in its parts also changes some part along another path, so that relation is underdetermined by intervention data and is inferred by abduction or from simultaneity and settled parthood; and which of the two a given dependence is depends on the time resolution at which a description treats the parts' response as instantaneous

Graph View

Source

Baumgartner, Casini and Krickel (2020), LIT-1924, §2 (pp. 3–6), §3 (pp. 6–9) and §4 (pp. 9–12) of the penultimate draft; read in NOTE-1494.

What was actually shown

Principles. (UC): every change in a non-fundamental phenomenon Ψ is “necessarily and simultaneously realized” by a change in some constituent on every lower level. (SIM): “Simultaneous changes cannot be causally related.” (TR): co-occurrence is transitive. Parthood relations and the local level hierarchy (direct proper parthood relative to Ψ) are assumed known (p. 5).

The restricted intervention (H, p. 9). I is horizontally surgical on a part Φᵏᵢ w.r.t. Ψ iff it causes Φᵏᵢ, any changes it makes to both Φᵏᵢ and Ψ are simultaneous, and it directly causes at most one behaviour on every level below Ψ.

Sufficiency (SUF, pp. 9–11). If a horizontally surgical intervention changes both Φᵏᵢ and Ψ, Φᵏᵢ is a constituent. Suppose not. By UC, some constituent Φʰⱼ on Φᵏᵢ’s level realizes Ψ’s change at the same time. By TR, Φᵏᵢ and Φʰⱼ change together; by SIM, neither causes the other; so both are direct effects of I, two on one level, against H(iii). Checked: valid.

Why weaker notions fail (pp. 7–8). Admitting common causes whose effects stand in supervenience presupposes the supervenience base, that is, the constituents. Admitting all common causes lets in sterile effects and detached parts.

What could have failed. The proof could have needed a premise about the particular mechanism. It needs only the three principles and settled parthood.

What this does not say

  • That horizontally surgical interventions exist anywhere. The paper notes they need ideal interventions on a constituent with respect to the non-overlapping parts of the phenomenon, whose existence is as doubtful as in causal contexts (p. 12).
  • That the condition is necessary. hFAT, which would make it so, is “tempting” and “beyond the scope” (pp. 3, 11).
  • Where the boundary is, or what the levels are. These are inputs. The condition sorts parts already known to be parts. Leuridan’s endosymbiosis case (LIT-1929, unread) is a reason to doubt that spatiotemporal inclusion settles parthood.
  • That simultaneity is sharp. H(ii) and SIM draw the line at zero delay. Where a part’s response takes time, as for an interior that relaxes at a finite rate, whether it counts as simultaneous depends on the time resolution of the description (CLAIM-480; CLAIM-528 part 3). Krickel’s temporal-phase reading of mutual manipulability (LIT-1925, footnote 3, unread) points the same way.

Connections

  • QUESTION-284: a positive evidential criterion for part–whole constitution, at the price the question’s second half names: the boundary and levels must be fixed first.
  • CLAIM-522 and CLAIM-194: the one intervention-based route to constitution in this debate presupposes a boundary, as CLAIM-522 says every intervention-based verdict on maintenance does. CLAIM-522’s own separating interventions act with delay and are not of this kind.
  • CLAIM-515: the single-intervention route to synchronic realization; its premises are rarely available for an organization’s capabilities.

Backlinks