3

Typically, macroscopic dispositions like fragility are in principle reducible to the molecular structure of the glass. Analogously for flammability, or even for mental dispositions like irritability, etc. What are examples of irreducible dispositions of objects?

For example, mass, charge, spin can be considered irreducible dispositions?

Arman Armenpress
  • 161
  • 1
  • 4
    Your "irreducible dispositions of objects" regarding physical aspects can be called [brute fact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact) termed by modern philosopher G. E. M. Anscombe: *In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that cannot be explained in terms of a deeper, more "fundamental" fact...To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained ("Everything can be explained" is sometimes called the principle of sufficient reason)...* – Double Knot Feb 08 '22 at 05:29
  • 1
    The disposition of an electron to go through one or the other slit half of the time in the double slit experiment. More generally, on propensity accounts of quantum mechanics, quantum systems have irreducible disposition (propensity) to collapse their wave functions once in a while, see [Dorato, Dispositions and propensities in the ontology of quantum mechanics](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.682.1597&rep=rep1&type=pdf). – Conifold Feb 08 '22 at 13:52
  • @Conifold Do different particles have different dispositions? For example, electron and photon. – Arman Armenpress Feb 08 '22 at 15:27
  • For the purposes of the double slit experiment both behave the same, as I recall. – Conifold Feb 08 '22 at 19:29
  • @Conifold But in other conditions, they can behave differently. – Arman Armenpress Feb 08 '22 at 19:56
  • 1
    Sure, but different kinds of objects trivially must have different dispositions in *some* conditions, or they'd behave identically. – Conifold Feb 08 '22 at 19:58

2 Answers2

0

Consider dispositions such as "transparent", "liquid", "light-giving", "red". What might confuse you is the atomic theory of matter, which is necessary for electricity, but is mostly a convenience for chemistry to be rigorous.

What lies beyond that are things like quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD), and here they are irreducible in property (like "white"), but not in mass.

Marxos
  • 735
  • 3
  • 12
0

The argument from science claims that our most successful sciences, especially particle physics, posit irreducible powers (Cartwright 2017; Cartwright and Pemberton 2013; Ellis 2001: 114–115 and 2002: 74; Mumford 2006)

Cartwright is big into the irreducibility of her "causal powers"; these are anti Humean. She appeals to Mill on causation, despite Mill being clear that his 'capacities' are reducible

The earth causes the fall of heavy bodies, and it also, in its capacity of a great magnet, causes the phenomena of the magnetic needle . . . The purpose to which the phraseology of Properties and Powers is specially adapted, is the expression of this sort of cases . . . it is usual to say that each different sort of effect is produced by a different property of the cause. Thus we distinguish the attractive or gravitative property of the earth, and its magnetic property: the gravitative, luminiferous, and calorific properties of the sun . . . (Mill 1843: 345)

Apologies, but I cannot find an example from "particle physics", but she acknowledges they are "probabilistic"

  • P(E∣C)>P(E).

and so somewhat out of date

Fairly recently, a number of techniques have been developed for representing systems of causal relationships, and for inferring causal relationships from probabilities. The name ‘causal modeling’ is often used to describe the new interdisciplinary field devoted to the study of methods of causal inference. This field includes contributions from statistics, artificial intelligence, philosophy, econometrics, epidemiology, and other disciplines.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/

Seems like there's a lot of interesting work on 'causation'