Advertisement

Chemistry and the Completeness of Physics

  • Robin Findlay Hendry
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 320)

Abstract

There are two lines of thought that lead to the thesis that the subject matter of chemistry is dependent in some way on the subject matter of physics. Each connects the thesis directly with its main source of empirical support, the sciences, and in particular their methods, their theories and inter-relations among them. The first is mereological: properties of wholes depend in some way on (and may even be “nothing more than”) the properties of their parts. If physics studies the parts of the kinds of things that chemistry studies, the dependence claim follows. And this makes physics basic to the explanatory aims of chemistry itself, for chemistry, so the argument goes, is explanatorily analytical: to explain what things do, it looks to their parts. The second line of thought is that the science of physics aims at full coverage. Physical laws cover everything, but the laws of other sciences, including chemistry, are of restricted scope: their truth does not require their full generality. Since physical laws cover everything, including chemical systems and their parts, if possession of a chemical property confers genuine causal powers, this must be in virtue of some relationship that that chemical property bears to some property that falls under a physical law. But the mereological claim has bite only if determination can only flow upwards that is, if the completeness claim is true. Hence this paper is concerned with this second line of thought. In what follows I will first explore the role of the completeness claim in contemporary physicalism, and then examine some of the arguments offered in its support. A good way to examine a thesis is to consider a position which denies it. Hence emergentism which is committed to the existence of downward causation will occupy Section 2. In Section 3 I will apply C. D. Broad’s characterization of downward causation to quantum chemistry, arguing that the molecular Hamiltonians standardly cited in spectroscopic explanations fit Broad’s account of physical explanation rather than the physicalists’.

Keywords

Downward Causation Spectroscopic Behaviour Strong Supervenience Nonreductive Physicalism Potential Energy Operator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkins, P. W. (1986). Physical Chemistry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Broad, C. D. (1925). The Mind and its Place in Nature. Kegan Paul, Trench and Trubner, London.Google Scholar
  3. Cartwright, N. (2000). Against the completability of science. In Stone, M. and Wolff, J., editors, The Proper Ambition of Science, pp. 209–222. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  4. Crane, T. (1991). Why indeed? Analysis, 51: 32–37.Google Scholar
  5. Crane, T. and Mellor, D. H. (1990). There is no question of physicalism. Mind, 99: 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Field, H. (1992). Physicalism. In Earman, J., editor, Inference, Explanation and Other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 271–291. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Hendry, R. F. (1998). Models and approximations in quantum chemistry. In Shanks, N., editor, Idealization in Contemporary Physics, pp. 123–142. R.odopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta.Google Scholar
  8. Horgan, T. (1993). From supervenience to superdupervenience: meeting the demands of a material world. Mind, 102: 555–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim, J. (1992). Downward causation, emergentism and nonreductive physicalism. In Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., and Kim, J., editors, Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects for Non-Reductive Physicalism, pp. 119–138. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, J. (1997). Supervenience, emergence and realization in the philosophy of mind In Carrier, M. and Machamer, P. K., editors, Mindscapes: Philosophy, Science, and the Mind, pp. 271–293. Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (1966). An argument for the identity theory. Journal of Philosophy, 63: 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loewer, B. (1995). An argument for strong supervenience. In Savellos, E. E. and Yalçin, U. D., editors, Supervenience: New Essays, pp. 218–225. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McLaughlin, B. (1992). The rise and fall of british emergentism. In Beck-ermann, A., Flohr, H. and Kim, J., editors, Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects for Non-Reductive Physicalism, pp. 49–93. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Papineau, D. (1990). Why supervenience? Analysis, 50: 66–71.Google Scholar
  15. Papineau, D. (1991). The reason why. Analysis, 51: 37–40.Google Scholar
  16. Papineau, D. (1995). Arguments for supervenience and physical realization. In Savellos, E. E. and Yalçin, U. D., editors, Supervenience: New Essays, pp. 226–243. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Papineau, D. (2000). The rise of physicalism. In Stone, M. and Wolff, J., editors, The Proper Ambition of Science, pp. 174–208. R.outledge, London.Google Scholar
  18. Quine, W. V. (1981). Goodman’s ways of worldmaking. In Quine, W. V., Theories and Things, pp. 96–99. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  19. Silverstein, R. M., Hassler, G. C., and Morrill, T. C. (1991). Spectrometric Identification of Organic Compounds. Wiley, New York, fifth edition.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, P. (1992). Modest reductions and the Unity of Science. In Charles, D. and Lennon, K., editors, Reduction, Explanation, and Realism, pp. 19–43. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, P. and Jones, O. R. (1986). The Philosophy of Mind: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinfeld, J. (1985). Molecules and Radiation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., second edition.Google Scholar
  23. Woolley, R. (1976). Quantum theory and molecular structure. Advances in Physics, 25: 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Woolley, R. (1991). Quantum chemistry beyond the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. Journal of Molecular Structure (Theochem), 230: 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Findlay Hendry
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DurhamEngland

Personalised recommendations