Appearance and Persistence as the Unity of Diachronic and Synchronic Concepts of Emergence

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985955%3A_____%2F20%3A00535388" target="_blank" >RIV/67985955:_____/20:00535388 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09506-6" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09506-6</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09506-6" target="_blank" >10.1007/s10838-020-09506-6</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Appearance and Persistence as the Unity of Diachronic and Synchronic Concepts of Emergence

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Recent philosophical discourse on emergence has developed with particular concern for the distinction between weak and strong emergence (e.g., Bedau 1997, Chalmers 2002) and with the primary focus on detailed analysis of the concept of supervenience (e.g., im 1984, 1999, McLaughlin 1997). However, in the last decade and as a new departure, attention has been devoted to the distinction between synchronic and diachronic emergence (e.g., Humphreys 2008a, b, Kirchhoff 2014). In this philosophical context, there is an ongoing general belief that these two concepts (diachronic and synchronic) are so different that it is impossible to establish for them a general unifying framework (Humphreys 2016a, b). It is the purpose of this paper to support an alternative view, i.e. that these concepts are different but not mutually exclusive, and that attending to appearance and persistence can, in this context, lead to an acceptable unifying framework for these two, differing concepts of emergence.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Appearance and Persistence as the Unity of Diachronic and Synchronic Concepts of Emergence

Popis výsledku anglicky

Recent philosophical discourse on emergence has developed with particular concern for the distinction between weak and strong emergence (e.g., Bedau 1997, Chalmers 2002) and with the primary focus on detailed analysis of the concept of supervenience (e.g., im 1984, 1999, McLaughlin 1997). However, in the last decade and as a new departure, attention has been devoted to the distinction between synchronic and diachronic emergence (e.g., Humphreys 2008a, b, Kirchhoff 2014). In this philosophical context, there is an ongoing general belief that these two concepts (diachronic and synchronic) are so different that it is impossible to establish for them a general unifying framework (Humphreys 2016a, b). It is the purpose of this paper to support an alternative view, i.e. that these concepts are different but not mutually exclusive, and that attending to appearance and persistence can, in this context, lead to an acceptable unifying framework for these two, differing concepts of emergence.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60301 - Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA17-16370S" target="_blank" >GA17-16370S: Redukcionismus a emergence: perspektivy v současné filosofii a metodologii vědy</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal for General Philosophy of Science

ISSN

0925-4560

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

51

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

17

Strana od-do

393-409

Kód UT WoS článku

000523312900001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85084754717