Skip to main content

Of Lego and Layers (and Fundamentalism)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
What is Fundamental?

Part of the book series: The Frontiers Collection ((FRONTCOLL))

  • 1405 Accesses

Abstract

‘Fundamental’ is a prime example of what philosopher John Post (presumably following legal jargon) called an “accordion word”: highly flexible and capable of expanding or contracting depending on context. Physicists (of a certain stripe) and many cosmologists will view their domain as fundamental, and one will often see the expression ‘fundamental physics’ to describe an actual subject area—the idea being that such practitioners are dealing in ‘compositional ultimates’ (the ‘building blocks’ of physical reality, in journalese).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anderson, P.: More is different. Science 177(4047), 393–396 (1972)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Arkani-Hamed, N., Han, T., Mangano, M., Wang, L.-T.: Physics opportunities of a 100 TeV proton-proton collider. Phys. Rep. 652(3), 1–49 (2016)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bohm, D.: Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cushing, J.: Theory Construction and Selection in Modern Physics: The S Matrix. Cambridge University Press (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dresden, M.: Reflections on “Fundamentality and Complexity”. In: Enz, C., Mehra, J. (eds.) Physical Reality and Mathematical Description, pp. 133–166. Reidel, Dordrecht (1974)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Hagedorn, R.: What happened to our elementary particles? In: Enz, C., Mehra, J. (eds.) Physical Reality and Mathematical Description, pp. 100–110. Reidel, Dordrecht (1974)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Kemeny, J.G., Oppenheim, P.: On reduction. Philos. Stud. 7(1–2), 6–19 (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lewis, D.: Reduction of mind. Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology: Volume 2, pp. 291–324. Cambridge University Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Oppenheim, P., Putnam, H.: Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In: Feigl, H., Scriven, M., Maxwell, G. (eds.) Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-body Problem, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science II, pp. 3–36. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schaffer, J.: Is there a fundamental level? Noûs 37(3), 498–517 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schaffer, J.: Monism: the priority of the whole. Philos. Rev. 119, 31–76 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van Inwagen, P.: Material Beings. Cornell University Press (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dean Rickles .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rickles, D. (2019). Of Lego and Layers (and Fundamentalism). In: Aguirre, A., Foster, B., Merali, Z. (eds) What is Fundamental?. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11301-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics