Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:17:38.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Pitfalls of Microphysical Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

Microphysical realism is the position that the only real entities and properties are found at the most fundamental level of nature. In this article, I challenge microphysical realism concerning properties and natural kinds. One argument for microphysical realism about entities, the “nothing-but argument,” does not apply to properties and kinds. Another argument, the “causal exclusion argument,” cannot be sustained in light of modern physics. Moreover, this argument leads to an objection against microphysical realism, based on the “illusoriness of macroproperties.” Another objection is based on the possibility that there is no fundamental level but a “bottomless pit.”

Type
Research Article
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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to an audience at the Philosophy of Science Association Biennial Meeting in Montreal, November 2010, for helpful comments.

References

Armstrong, David M. 1989. Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Armstrong, David M.. 1992/1997. “Properties.” In Properties, ed. Mellor, D. H. and Oliver, A., 160–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Block, Ned. 2003. “Do Causal Powers Drain Away?Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67:133–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, Crawford. 2004. Real Natures and Familiar Objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Brian. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heil, John. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, Terence. 2001. “Causal Compatibilism and the Exclusion Problem.” Theoria 16:95116.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 1984. “Concepts of Supervenience.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45:153–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. “Against Structural Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64:2546.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. 2003. “Is There a Fundamental Level?Nous 37:498517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar