aristotle, god, and the quantum tracked2. aristotle’s image of nature in aristotle’s philosophy...
TRANSCRIPT
1
KnowingNature:Aristotle,God,andtheQuantum
RobertC.Koons1
ProfessorofPhilosophy
UniversityofTexasatAustin
Abstract
Aristotle'stheoryofnatureofferedanumberofadvantagesfromaChristianpointof
view.Itallowedforaprofounddifferencebetweenhumanbeingsandothermaterial
entitiesbasedonadistinctionbetweenrationalityandsub-rationality,whichfit
nicelywiththeBiblicalconceptionofhumansastheuniquebearersofthedivine
imageinthephysicalworld.Atthesametime,Aristotelianismconceivedofhuman
desiresandaspirationsascontinuouswiththestrivingofallnaturalentitiestotheir
essence-determinedends,providinganobjectiveandscientificbasisforobjective
normsinethics,aesthetics,andpolitics.TheScientificRevolutionofthelastthree
hundredyears,whileclearlyenablinganamazingdegreeofprogressinour
understandingofthephysicalbasisoftheworld(bothattheverysmallandvery
largeendsofthescale),occasionedtheunnecessarylossofmanymetaphysical
insightsofAristotleandtheAristoteliantradition,insightswhichremainessentialto
theunderstandingofmiddle-sizedobjects--likehumanbeings.Thequantum
revolutionofthelastonehundredyearshasgraduallytransformedtheimaginative
landscapeofnaturalscience,creatingnewopportunitiesfortherecoveryofthose
sameAristotelianthemes.(191)
1. Introduction
1 Iwouldliketoacknowledgethesupportduringthe2014-15academicyearoftheJamesMadisonPrograminAmericanIdealsandInstitutionsatPrincetonUniversity(foraVisitingFellowship)andtheUniversityofTexasatAustin(forafacultyresearchgrant).
2
InAristotle’sphilosophyofnature,themetaphysicalrelationshipbetweenmaterial
wholesandtheirpartsisacomplexandvariedone.Insomecases,thepartsare
whollypriortothewhole,namely,whenthewholeismerelyanunorganizedheapof
parts.Inothercases,however,thewholeisontologicallypriortoitsparts,inthe
sensethatthepartsderivetheirrealityandcausalagencyfromtheirparticipationin
thelifeofthewhole.Thisistruemostcentrallyorganisms(includinghumanbeings)
andtheirfunctionalparts.
Consequently,theAristotelianimageofnatureisoneinwhichthereare
metaphysicallyfundamentalentitiesatmultiplelevelsofscale.Somemetaphysically
fundamentalthingsarecomposedofsmallerthings,possessinganaturethatisnot
reducibletothenaturesandspatialrelationshipsoftheirparts.Incontrast,the
modernimageofnature,dominantfromthetimeofGalileoandBaconuntilthe
quantumrevolution,andmostfullydevelopedinthetheoriesofNewtonand
Maxwell,isoneinwhichallfundamentalmaterialentitiesaresimpleand
microscopicinscale.Onthequintessentially“modern”view,everycompositething
isamereheap(inAristotelianterms),whollyreducibletotheautonomousnatures
andpairwiseinteractionsoftheirultimateconstituents.
Inthismodernrevolution,theascendancyofthemicroscopicwascombinedwitha
rejectionoftwoofthefourcausesormodesofexplanationinAristotle’sphilosophy:
namely,theformalandthefinal.TheAristotelianschemeofunderstandingactionor
causationintermsoftheexerciseofcausalpowersanddispositionsofthings,
anchoredintheenduringnaturesofthosethings,wasreplacedbyexclusivereliance
onmathematicallawsofmotion,withverycarefulattentionpaidtothespatial
arrangementsandrelativemotionsofthemicroscopicpartsofthings.
Thequantumrevolutionofthelast100yearshastransformedtheimageofphysical
andchemicalnatureinprofoundwaysthatarenotyetfullyunderstandby
philosophersorphysicalscientists.Thenewimageofnaturehasinfactrevived
3
Aristotelianmodesofunderstandingacrossawideswathofscientificdisciplines,a
transformationthathasoccurredspontaneouslyandalmostwithoutbeingnoticed.
Astheneo-Aristotelianframeworkbeginstotakeshapeandrisetothelevelof
commonknowledge,therebyinfluencingourmetaphysicalimagination,our
understandingofoursharedhumannatureandourplaceinthecosmoswill
improveinwaysthatarequiteconcordantwithclassicalChristianhumanism.
Insection2,IwilllayouttheprincipalelementsofAristotle'simageofnature,with
itsmulti-leveledworldthatincludedrealagencyatthebiologicalandpersonal
levels.Iwillthenbrieflydescribeinsection3theanti-Aristotelianrevolutionofthe
seventeenthcenturyanditsmetaphysicalconsequences,includingtheimmediate
movementtowardsomeformofmind/matterdualismandthesubsequent
shrinkingofthedomainofthesoultoavanishingpoint.Theultimateresultofthis
revolutionisthedominancewithinphilosophyofmicro-physicalism,thethesisthat
allofmaterialrealityisexhaustedbytheautonomousnaturesoffundamental
particles(orwaves)andtheirspatialandtemporalinter-relations.
Insection4,Ipointoutthewaysinwhichthequantumrevolutionhasreversedthe
advantagesenjoyedbymicro-physicalismundertheNewton-Maxwellregime.
Quantumtheoryrevealsaworldinwhichwholesaretypicallypriortotheirparts--
thatis,aworldinwhicheitherthecausalpowersorthespatiallocations(orboth)of
micro-particlesdependupontheirreduciblyholisticfeaturesofthesystemsto
whichtheybelong.Thisisthewell-knownfactofthenon-separabilityofquantum
properties.
Theso-calledmeasurementprobleminquantummechanicshascreatedasituation
inwhichitisnowquiteunclearhowthefamiliar“classical”properties(likespatial
position)ofthemacroscopicobjectsthatwecanobserverelatetothequantum
statesoftheirultimateconstituents.Quantummechanicsisthusopentomultiple,
empiricallyequivalentinterpretations,someofwhichsimplydenythatmacroscopic
4
objectsarewhollyderivative,obtainingtheirmacroscopicpropertiesbyamere
summationofthepropertiesoftheirparts.Iwilldescribeaneo-Aristotelian
interpretationofquantummechanics:NancyCartwright’sdappledworldmodel.
Finally,insection5,Iwillconcludewithacallforphilosophers,theologians,and
scientiststocollaborateinanewphilosophyofnature.
2. Aristotle’simageofnature
InAristotle’sphilosophyofnature,asdevelopedinhisPhysicsandMetaphysics,all
materialthingshavetwometaphysicalfactorsorgrounds:theirmatterandtheir
form.Thematterofathingconsistsofitspartsorcomponents:thematterofa
mixtureistheelementsthatcomposeit,andthematterofanorganismismadeup
ofitsdiscreteparts.Thereisreallynosuchthingasmatterassuch(exceptasakind
ofusefulfictionorlimiting-caseidealization,so-called“prime”matter).Instead,
matterisarelativeterm:themanypartsandcomponentsare(collectively)the
matterofthewholetheycompose.
Thereare,correspondingly,twofundamentalkindsofexplanationorcausation:
formalandmaterial.Materialexplanationisbottom-up:weexplainthe
characteristicsofawholeintermsofthewayinwhichthecharacteristicsofitsparts
andtheirrelationstoeachotherconstrainhowthewholemustbe.Wecanexplain
theflammabilityofabookintermsoftheflammabilityofitspages,andwecan
explaintheshapeofoneoftheGreatPyramidsintermsofthespatialrelations
amongitsconstituentblocksofstone.
Formalcausation,incontrast,istop-down.Togivetheformalcauseofathingisto
elucidateitsessence,thewhat-it-is-to-beathingofitskind.Theessenceofa
compositethingconstrainsandpartiallydeterminesthenaturesandmutual
relationsofitsparts.Theessenceofeachpartdepends(tosomedegree,atleast)on
5
theessenceofthewholeinwhichitparticipates.Forexample,tobeaheartistobe
anorganthatplaysacertainroleinanorganism’scirculatorysystem.Tobefleshis
tobeorganicmaterialthatparticipatesactivelyintheorganicfunctionsofan
animal.TobeageneistobepartofaDNAmoleculethatcodesfortheproductionof
certainproteinsinthenaturalcellularactivityofthecell.Andsoon.
Oncewehavetheformalandmaterialcausesofcompletematerialthings(which
Aristotlecalledουσιαιorsubstances),wecanpredictandexplainhowtheywill
interact.Thatis,wewillhaveanaccountoftheactiveandpassivecausalpowersof
things:whatchangestheycancauseinothersandwhatchangestheycanundergo
themselves.Thiswayofaccountingforchange—namely,changeastheresultofthe
exerciseofcausalpowers,rootedintheformsoressencesoftheagentandpatient
involved—iscalledefficientcausation.TheAristotelianmodelofefficientcausation
doesnotsimplyseektodescribethechangesasconformingtosomeabstractlawsof
natureorofmotion(asisthecaseinmuchmodernphilosophy,followingtheleadof
Hume)butratherattemptstounderstandthechangesasexpressionsoftheformal
andmaterialcausesoftheentitiesinvolvedintheinteraction.Inpart,thisisbecause
Aristotleconceivesoftimeastheproductofchange,andnotviceversa.Itis
essences(theformalcauses)ofthingsthatpropeltimeforwardbyinducingchange
andinitiatingactivities.Unlikeearlymodernphilosophers,Aristotledidnotthinkof
changeastheby-productoftheinexorableforwardmovementoftimeandthe
guidanceofabstractandgloballawsofnature.2
TheAristotelianconceptionofefficientcausationthroughcausalpowersallowsfor
theexistenceofexceptionalsituations:situationsinwhichthecausalpowerofone
substanceisfrustratedordistortedbytheactionofanothersubstance,orbythe
absenceofoneofitsnaturalpreconditions.ItisnaturalinanAristotelian
2 See Cartwright (1983) and (1994) for a defense of the Aristotelian model of efficient
causation, in light of modern experimental science.
6
frameworktospeakofthemalfunctioningofasubstancewhenitscausalpowersare
blockedordisabled.Inaddition,acomplexsubstancecanbecomemoreorless
denatured,losing(perhapspermanently)someofthecausalpowersthatdefineits
naturalkind.Thislossofcharacteristicpowerscanbeidentifiedwiththe
phenomenonofbeingdamaged.Wecanfurtherdistinguishbetweenasubstance’s
normalandabnormalenvironmentbyidentifyingwhichexternalconditionsdoor
donotdamageordisableit.
Finalcausationorteleology—theuniversaldirectednessofthingstotheirnatural
“ends”—readilyfollowsfromthisAristotelianfoundation.Theactiveandpassive
causalpowersofathinghaveaninherentandineliminablereferencetoanideal
future:howthingswouldproceedifthosepowerswereabletoexpressthemselves
fullyandwithoutinterference.AsThomasAquinasputsitintheSummaTheologiae
(PartI,Q44,A4):“Everyagentactsforanend:otherwiseonethingwouldnotfollow
morethananotherfromtheactionoftheagent,unlessitwerebychance.”This
applieseventoinanimateagents.DavidArmstrongreferredtothisasthe“proto-
intentionality”ofcausalpowers(Armstrong1999,138-40),andGeorgeMolnar
spokeinsuchcasesof“physicalintentionality”(Molnar2003,60-66).Thus,the
intentionalityofhumandesiresandaspirations(theirbeingaboutsomepossible,
idealfuture)isperfectlycontinuouswiththeproto-intentionalityofallAristotelian
substances,whetheranimateorinanimate,consciousornon-conscious,rationalor
sub-rational.
Inparticular,asAristotlenotes(PartsofAnimalsI,i,640b-641b),theheterogeneous
partsofanimalsrequireexplanationintermsoftheirend(τελοσ).Teleologyin
biologyissimplytheapplicationtolivingthingsofAristotle’sgeneralschemeof
explanation.Iforganismstrulyexistasgenuinesubstances(ουσιαι),thentheymust
haveformsthatsupplythemandtheirpartswithgenuine,irreduciblybiological
causalpowers.Aswehaveseen,tobearcausalpowersisipsofactotobeorderedto
7
certainkindsofidealfutures.Thus,thereisanunbreakableconnectionbetweenthe
substantialrealityoforganismsandthegenuinenessofbiologicalteleology.
AsGeorgToepferhasputitinarecentessay:
“…teleologyiscloselyconnectedtotheconceptoftheorganismandtherefore
hasitsmostfundamentalroleintheverydefinitionofbiologyasaparticular
scienceofnaturalobjects….Theidentityconditionsofbiologicalsystemsare
givenbyfunctionalanalysis,notbychemicalorphysicaldescriptions….This
meansthat,beyondthefunctionalperspective,whichconsistsinspecifying
thesystembyfixingtherolesofitsparts,theorganismdoesnotevenexistas
adefiniteentity.”(Toepfer2012,at113,115,118)
Consequently,intheAristotelianimageofnature,substances(metaphysically
fundamentalthings)existatmanylevelsofscaleandcomposition.Forthisreason,
wecannotgiveacompletedescriptionofthematerialworldbysimplyaggregatinga
largenumberofmicroscopicdescriptions.Exclusiveattentiontothemicroscopic
scalewillnecessarilyleaveoutmanycrucialfactsaboutthenaturesofmacroscopic
substancesandthecausalpowersthatderivefromthesemacroscopicnatures.
Aristotelianscanthusacknowledgerealandirreducibleagencyatmanydifferent
levelsofscale:chemical,thermodynamical,biological,andsocio-political,aswellas
micro-physical.Inparticular,therationalagencyofhumanbeingsisnotthreatened
bytheircompletemateriality.Themacroscopicbehaviorofthewholehumanbeing
isnotmerelyaby-productorepiphenomenonoftheinteractionsofhismicroscopic
partsandthoseofhisenvironment.Thehumanbeingassuch,includingarational
sensitivitytothetruevalueofthings,makesarealcontributiontotheflowofevents
inthematerialworld,withoutrequiringanyinteractionbetweenthebodyandsome
separate,whollyimmaterialsoul.ForAristotelians,thehumansoulistheformof
thelivinghumanbody.
8
Thisdoesnotmeanthathumanbeingscannotsurvivedeath.ThomasAquinas
arguedconvincinglythatthehumanform(asconceivedbyAristotle)couldsurvive
thedeathofthebody,sincethelifeofhumanbeingsincludesapurelyintellectual
setofactivities(namely,understandingandcontemplatinguniversaltruths)thatdo
notdependonanycorporealorgan(noteventhebrain).Thus,thehumanformor
soulcanexistbyenablingandsustainingthesepurelyintellectualactivities,even
afterithasceasedtoinformandstructuretheorganicprocessesofthebody.With
God’shelpatthemomentofresurrection,thehumansoulcanresumeitsnatural
functionastheformofaliving,humanbody.3Whileweareembodied,oursoulsare
notseparateentitiesthatinteractcausallywiththemicroscopicpartsofourbody.
Instead,theembodiedsoulistheformthatinherentlystructuresthepowersand
inter-relationsofthoseparts,groundingalloftheirowncausalpowers(fromthe
“inside”,sotospeak).
AsEdwardFeser(2010)andmanyothershavepointedout,Aristotle’sschemeof
universalnaturalteleologyfitsbeautifullywithaformoftheargumentfromdesign,
asexemplifiedbyThomasAquinas’sFifthWay(intheSummaTheologiaePartI,Q2
A3).SinceGodistheuncausedFirstCauseofallofnature,Hemustbetheultimate
sourceofallofnature’sinherentteleology.Thus,theproto-teleologyofthe
inanimateandsub-rationalworldiswhollygroundedinthewisdomandforesightof
God.
3. Theanti-Aristotelianrevolution
FromthelateMiddleAges(afterthedeathofThomasAquinas)throughthe
ScientificRevolutionandthebirthofmodernphilosophyintheseventeenth
3 See Brian Leftow’s clear exposition of the Thomistic understanding of the soul in
Leftow (2001) and (2010).
9
century,WesternEuropeansabandonedthreekeyelementsoftheAristotelian
system.First,beginningwithDunsScotus,theyreplacedAristotle’smatter-form
relationwiththeearlymodernconceptionofmatterassuch,assomethingwithan
inherentnatureofitsown.Second,theyreplacedAristotle’smodelofinterlocking
causalpowers(activeandpassive)andtimeasthemeasureofchangewithamodel
ofabstractlawsofmotionandafixedandindependenttemporaldimension.Third,
andconsequenttothefirsttwo,theyabandonedAristotle’sformalandfinal
causation,limitingteleologytotherelationbetweenconsciousagentsandtheirfelt
desiresandimpulses.
3.1Theintroductionofmatterassuch
AsdescribedbyRichardCross(Cross1998,74-77),thescholasticphilosopherDuns
ScotusreplacedAristotle’srelationalconceptionofmatter(xisthematterofy,or
thex’sarecollectivelythematterofy)withasubstantiveconceptionofmatter,in
whichmatterassuchhasitsowndeterminatenatureandcausaldispositions.For
Aristotle,therelationofmattertoformwasarelationofpotentialitytoits
actualization:tosaythatthex’sarecollectivelythematterofyistosaythatthex’s
havethejointpotentialtocomposesomethingofy’snature.Thus,ifthereweresuch
athingaspureorprimematter,matterassuch,itwouldbeathingofpure
potentiality,withnopositivenatureofitsown.
Incontrast,Scotus(andthescholasticphilosopherswhofollowedhim,including
WilliamofOckham)thoughtofmatterasakindofthingorstuff,withitown
intelligiblenature.
3.2Abstractlawsofmotion
Earlymodernscienceandphilosophyinthesixteenthcenturyinheritedthislate-
medievalconceptionofmatterasakindofstuff.Theessenceofmatterwas
10
quantitative:allmattertakesupadefinitevolume(byfillingaregionofspace).By
takingintoaccounttherelativedensityofmatterinitsvariouslocations,wecan
assigntoeachchunkofmatteracertainabsolutequantity,whichcorrespondsto
somethinglikeweightand,eventually,mass.
Whatabouttheinherentcausaldispositionsofthismatter?Inthissimplestpicture
(embracedbyDescartes),matterhasthedispositiontomoveinaconstantvelocity
(byinertia,orconservationofmomentum),unlessdeflectedfromthismovementby
acollisionwithothermaterialbodies.Thediscoveryofgravityand,eventually,of
electromagneticforcesspoiledthesimplicityofthislate-scholastic/early-modern
modelandineffectre-introducedatthemicrophysicallevelinstancesofsomething
verymuchlikeAristotelianforms(theformoftheelectronasnegativelycharged,
forexample).
ThispartialrecoveryofAristotelianmetaphysicswasobscuredbythesimultaneous
replacement(inthinkerslikeMalebrancheandHume)ofcausalpowersbylawsof
motion.Insteadofthinkingaboutbodiesashaving(byvirtueofgravitationalmass
orelectriccharge)thepowerofmovingandmovingotherbodies,scientistsand
philosopherswereinsteadcontenttodescribetheregularrelationshipsbetween
inputsandoutputsasdescribedbyabstractlawsofmotion,conceivedofas“lawsof
nature”.
Thisshiftfromhypothesizingnaturesandtheirpowerstotheuseofmathematical
equationsandfunctionstodescribepossiblemotionsreflectedtheearlier
pragmatismofDescartesandFrancisBacon.DescartesandBaconexpressedtheir
lackofinterestinadeepunderstandingofwhythingsactedthewaytheydid.They
arguedthatmodernscienceshouldinsteadfocussimplyonpredictingand
controllingthebehaviorofthings.
11
"Itispossibletoattainknowledgewhichisveryusefulinlife,and,insteadof
thatspeculativephilosophywhichistaughtintheschools,wemayfinda
practicalphilosophybymeansofwhich,knowingtheforceandactionoffire,
water,air,thestars,heavensandallotherbodiesthatenvironus,…[Wecan]
employthemallinusestowhichtheyareadapted,andthusrenderourselves
themastersandpossessorsofnature."(Descartes,DiscourseonMethod,
VolumeI,119.SeealsoBacon,TheAdvancementofLearning,p.96.)
3.3Rejectionofformalandfinalcausation
Oncemodernphilosophersandscientistshadreplacedtalkofcausalpowersand
interactionswithabstractlawsofmotion,quitenaturallytheconceptsofformaland
finalcausationfellintodisuse.Lawsofmotionweresupposedtobeuniversaland
exceptionless,leavingnoroomformalfunctionordamage.
ThepragmatismofphilosopherslikeDescartesandBaconcontributedtothe
removalofteleologyfromnaturalscience.Understandingthenaturalendof
somethingcontributednothingtoourcontroloverit.Controlrequiredmerelya
detailedknowledgeoftheinternaldispositionofitsmatter,insuchawaythatlaws
ofmotioncouldbeusedtopredictandcontrolitsbehavior.Attentiontonatures,
causalpowers,andinherentdirectednessweremerelydistractionsfromthis
urgentlyneededproject:
“Butthismisplacinghathcausedadeficience,oratleastagreat
improficienceinthesciencesthemselves.Forthehandlingoffinalcauses,
mixedwiththerestinphysicalinquiries,hathinterceptedthesevereand
diligentinquiryofallrealandphysicalcauses,andgivenmentheoccasionto
stayuponthesesatisfactoryandspeciouscauses,tothegreatarrestand
prejudiceoffartherdiscovery.”(FrancisBacon,TheAdvancementofLearning,
p.987)
12
TheFrenchbiologistClaudeBernard(1813-1878)clearlyexpressedthemodern
attitudeinsaying,“Thefinalcausedoesnotinterveneasanactualandefficacious
lawofnature.”(Bernard1966,p.336)Bernardcannotconceiveofanycausation
exceptthatexpressedbyabstractlaws.Hedrewthelogicalconsequence:“Vital
propertiesareinrealityonlythephysicochemicalpropertiesoforganizedmatter.”
(Bernard1966,pp.22-23)(QuotedbyGilsonandtranslatedbyJohnLyon,1984,pp.
35-6)
3.4Thedualismofmodernity:Afracturedworld
Ifthenaturalworldconsistsentirelyofa(moreorless)uniform“matter”,andifthis
mattersimplyobeysuniversal,exceptionless“laws”,whatplaceisleftforhuman
thoughtandhumanagency?BeginningwithscholasticphilosopherslikeDuns
Scotus,EuropeanthinkersbeganmovingawayfromtheAristotelianhylomorphism
ofThomasAquinastowardsomeformofmind-bodydualism.ScotusandOckham,
followedbyBaconandDescartes,explicitlylimitedthescopeofteleologyand
purposetotheconsciousdesiresofhumanegos,egosthatarenowradically
divorcedfromtheworldofmatter.
3.5TheSouloftheGaps:Theabolitionofhumanagencyandteleology
However,thisdualismofthelatescholasticandearlymodernworlddidnot
constituteastablepositionbutquicklycollapsedintoanaustereformof
materialism.Dualismintroducedakindof“soulofthegaps”:mentalentitiesasan
extraneous,adventitiousadditiontothescientificworldview,introducedsimplyto
explainthosefeaturesofhumanlifeandexperiencethatsciencehasnot(yet)
explainedintermsofthemotionsofmatter.Aswegainedamoreandmore
completeunderstandingoftheoperationsofthebrain,ofthenervecellsthatmake
upthebrain,andoftheorganicmoleculesthatmakeupthosecells,thereseemedto
13
belessandlessroomfortheinterventionofimmaterialsoulsoftheCartesiankind.
Eventually,amoreaustereandmonisticformofmaterialismtookhold,pioneered
byThomasHobbes,byFrenchthinkersliked’Holbach,andbytheGerman
materialistsofthe19thcentury.
Thismaterialismultimatelytakestheformofmicro-physicalism,thethesisthat
everytruth(causalandotherwise)aboutanymacroscopicsubstanceiswholly
groundedinandexplainedbythemicrophysicalfacts,includingboththeintrinsic
propertiesofthemicro-particlesandbinaryspatialrelationsamongtheirpositions
andvelocitiesinauniformandrigidbackgroundofabsolutespace.Moreover,this
groundingofmacroscopictruthsinmicroscopicfactslicensesanontological
reductionofmacroscopicthingstotheirmicrophysicalpartsandtheirspatial
relations:theformerarenothingoverandabovethelatter.
Thismicro-physicalism,commontobothancientmaterialistslikeDemocritusand
LucretiusandmodernphysicalistslikeQuineorDavidLewis,hasalwaysstoodin
sometensionwithourcommon-senseunderstandingofourselvesasrational
agents.Forexample,inthePhaedo,PlatoputsintoSocrates’mouthanargument
againstmetaphysicalmicrophysicalism(98c-99b).
“AnditseemedtomeitwasverymuchasifoneshouldsaythatSocrates
doeswithintelligencewhateverhedoes,andthen,intryingtogivethe
causesoftheparticularthingIdo,shouldsayfirstthatIamnowsittinghere
becausemybodyiscomposedofbonesandsinews,andthebonesarehard
andhavejointswhichdividethemandthesinewscanbecontractedand
relaxedand,withthefleshandtheskinwhichcontainsthemall,arelaid
aboutthebones;andso,asthebonesarehunglooseintheirligaments,the
sinews,byrelaxingandcontracting,makemeabletobendmylimbsnow,
andthatisthecauseofmysittingherewithmylegsbent…andshouldfailto
mentiontherealcauses,whichare,thattheAtheniansdecidedthatitwas
14
besttocondemnme,andthereforeIhavedecidedthatitwasbestformeto
sithereandthatitisrightformetostayandundergowhateverpenaltythey
order.”
Microphysicalistshaveessentiallythreeoptionsinresponsetothisargument:(i)
theycandenytheexistenceofrealorobjectivevaluesaltogether(thegoodnessof
Socrates’remaininginAthens),(ii)theycanassertthatourintentionsordecisions
areneverreallysensitivetotheseobjectivevalues(Socrates’rationalappreciation
ofthisvalue),or(iii)theycanclaimthatobjectivevaluesandoursensitivitytothem
aresomehowwhollygroundedinthemicrophysicalfacts.Noneofthesethreeseems
promising.JonathanDancy(2003),ChristinaKorsgaard(1986)andmanyothersin
recentyearshavecreatedpowerfulobjectionstoaHumeansubjectivismabout
value.And,inanycase,itseemsthatsubjectivevaluesmustultimatelybegrounded
inobjectivevalue,ifreasonistohaveanynormativeforceatall.Evenifone
supposesthatparticularthingsaregoodforanagentonlybecauseheorshedesires
them,onemuststillsupposethatdesiresarethesortofthingthat(otherthings
beingequal)oughttobesatisfied—thatthereissomethingobjectivelyworthyabout
seekingtosatisfythem.Finally,asJ.L.Mackieandothershaverecognized(Mackie
1977),itishardtobelievethattheobjectivevalueorto-be-sought-nessofcertain
statesoractionscouldbewhollygroundedinthesortoffactsdescribedbymicro-
physics.Micro-physicsprovidesnoroomfortherationalteleologyofhumanvalues.
3.6Thetriumphofmicro-physicalism
Whydosomanyphilosophersfindphysicalism—thethesisthattheonly
fundamentalfactsarephysicalfacts—soattractive?Allofthejuice,theinherent
plausibility,ofphysicalismcomesfromourattractiontomicroscopism:thethesis
thatonlytheultimatelymicroscopicfactsarefundamental.Withoutthe
microscopistpresumption,thereisnoreasontoprivilegephysicsoverother
sciences.Therearemanynon-physicalscience—chemistry,thermodynamics,
15
biology,evencognitivepsychology—thathavebeensuccessfulinidentifyingreal
causalmechanismsinourworld,andtherehasbeenabsolutelynosenseinwhich
theseotherscienceshavebeenprogressivelyreplacedbypurephysicsasscience
advances.Whatgivesphysicsitsprivilegedpositionisthefactthatitstudiesthe
smallestthings,thethingsofwhichtheobjectsofothersciencesarecomposed,
togetherwiththemicroscopistpresumption.
Butwhataccountsfortheattractivenessofmicroscopism?Onemotivationhasbeen
thatofmaintainingaunifiedpictureofnatureandofourscientificknowledgeof
nature:theunityofnatureidealortheunityofscienceideal.Thisdoesgiveussome
reasontominimizethenumberoffundamentalforcesthatwepositandtoresist
acceptinganyviolationsofthefundamentalconservationlaws.Thesereasons,in
turn,justifyatleasttosomeextentareluctancetoembracemind-bodydualism,
withitsneedformind-bodyinteraction.
However,theunityofnatureidealdoesn’tgiveusreasontoembraceanythingas
extremeasmicroscopismmuchlessmicrophysicalism.Thereisnoobviousreason
whylarge,compositeobjects,fullylocatedwithintheoneworldofnature,couldn’t
possessandexercisefundamentalcausalpowers,evenintheabsenceofnew
fundamentalforcesorviolationsofenergyconservation.
Therealcoreoftheappealofmicroscopismhastodowithasensethatmodern
sciencehasvindicatedakindofDemocriteanontologicalreductionism.Thethought
isthatwesimplydon’tneedtopositanyfundamentalagencyexceptatthelevelof
thesmallestparticlesorunitsofmatter.Wecould,inprinciple,explaineverythingin
termsofthepowersandinteractionsofthemicro-particles,inthesensethat
everythingathigherorlargerscalesiswhollygroundedinthegoings-onatthe
microphysicallevel.
16
Modernscienceprovidesaframeworkforakindofbottom-upreductionist
narrative:politicalandsocialphenomenareducetoindividualpsychology,
individualpsychologytobiology(includingneuroscience),biologyto
thermodynamics,thermodynamicstochemistry,chemistrytoatomicphysics,
atomicphysicstoparticlephysics.Asprogressinscienceoverthedecadesand
centuriesincreasesthestrengthofeverylinkofthischain,anti-reductionistsseem
tobealwayson“thewrongsideofhistory,”forcedintoanincreasinglyextreme
formofobscurantism.
Microphysicalism,therefore,dependsonaDemocriteanstartingpoint:
(1)Factsaboutmicroscopicatomsandthevoidare,metaphysicallyspeaking,
fundamentalorungroundedfacts.
(2)Thisungroundedfoundationconsistsofmicroscopicentitieswithcertain
intrinsiccharacteristics(shapeandsizeforDemocritus,butthiscanbeextendedto
includethingslikecharge,mass,spin,andsoon),andcertaininstantaneousspatial
relations.
(3)Allspatialrelationscanbeultimatelygroundedinalargenumberofsimple
binaryorternaryrelationsamongthemicroscopicentities(suchasdistance).
Inotherwords,“atomsandthevoid”(asDemocritusputit)constitutetheuniquely
fundamentallevelofreality,andeverythingelsecompletelydependsonandis
determinedbythem—that,everythingiswhollygroundedbythem.
Aristotle’shylomorphicmodeldeniedthefundamentalityorungroundednessofthe
microscopicrealm.ForAristotelians,theintrinsiccharactersofandmutualrelations
(includingspatialrelations)amongthemicroscopicentitiesaretypicallyoratleast
oftengroundedinthenaturesofthemacroscopicentitiesofwhichtheyareparts.
17
4. Thequantumcounter-revolution
4.1Therevengeofteleology
Classicalmechanicscanbeformulatedineitheroftwoways:intermsofdifferential
equationsbasedonNewton’slawsofmotion,orintermsofintegralequationsin
termsoftheconservationofenergy(theanalyticorHamiltonianmethod).Inthe
lattercase,thestructureofthemodelimposescertainconstraintsonthepossible
evolutionofthesystem,andthedynamicallawspickouttheactualevolutiononthe
basisofsomeminimization(ormaximization)principle,liketheprincipleofleast
action.(SeeYourgrauandMandelstam1979,pp.19-23,164-167;Lindsayand
Morgenaw1957,pp.133-6;Lanczos1986,pp.xxvii,345-6.)
TheNewtonianmodelisDemocritean,buttheHamiltonianisAristotelian,inbeing
bothessentiallyholisticandteleological.Thetotalenergyofaclosedsystemisan
irreduciblyholisticornon-separablepropertyofthesystem:itcannotbereducedto
theintrinsicpropertiesofthesystem’sconstituents,takenindividually.More
importantly,variationalprinciplesliketheleastactionprincipletreattheholistic
characterofanentiretrajectoryasfundamental,ratherthanthesetof
instantaneousfactsaboutthecompositionofforcesthatconstitutesthe
fundamentalfactsfortheNewtonianmodel.Theleast-actionprincipleisaformof
teleologicalexplanation,asLeibnizalreadyrecognized(McDonough2008,2009).
Inclassicalmechanics,eithermodelcanbeused,andtheyareprovablyequivalent.
Hence,classicalmechanicsleavesthemetaphysicalquestionofmicro-physicalism
vs.hylomorphismunresolved.However,withthequantumrevolution,the
Hamiltonianpicturebecomesmandatory,sincethefundamentalentitiescanno
longerbeimaginedtobemovinginresponsetothecompositionofforcesexertedat
eachmomentfromdeterminatedistances.Teleologyreignssupremeover
18
mechanicalforces,asMaxPlancknoted.(SeePlanck1936,pp.119-126;Planck
1960;Dusek2001;Thalos2013,pp.84-86.)Inaddition,thetotalenergyandaction
ofaclosedsystemareessentiallyholisticornon-separablepropertiesofthat
compositesystem,whichstandsincontradictiontothedemandsofmicro-
physicalism.
Furthermore,byforcingrelianceontheHamiltonianmodel,quantummechanics
bringsintosharperrelieftheholisticcharacterofcausalinteraction.Asnotedby
TiehenandKronz(2002),theHamiltonianmodelforcomplexquantumsystemsis
non-separable:“Inthatcase,thetimeevolutionofthedensityoperatorthatis
associatedwithapartofacompositesystemcannotingeneralbecharacterizedina
waythatisindependentofthetimeevolutionofthewhole.”(KronzandTiehen
2002,pp.343-4)Thecausalpowerresponsiblefortheevolutionofthesystemisan
irreduciblyjointpower,notsuperveningonthebinarycausalpowersofthe
componentparticles.
Aristotelianphilosophyofnaturerequiresprocessesasthenaturalresultsofthe
exerciseofcausalpowers.TheseAristotelianprocesses(κινησεσ)haveintrinsic
directionandpacing.4Aristotledidnot,ashislatemedievalandearlymoderncritics
supposed,anthromorphizenaturebyattributingvague“urges”or“drives”;rather,
hedevelopedaframeworkwithinwhichanimalandhumandrivescouldbeseenas
4 Schulman(1989)drawsoutafascinatingparallelbetweenAristotle’saccountof
motionas‘potential’and‘indeterminate’inPhysicsIIIandMetaphysicsIIIand
RichardFeynman’ssumoverpossiblehistoriesapproachtoquantummechanics.
Aristotledeniesthatthelocationofamovingbodyisfullyactualexceptatthe
beginningandendofacontinuousprocessoflocomotion.Feynman’ssum-over-
historiesapproachisawayoffleshingthisout:themovingbodytakesevery
possibletrajectorybetweenthetwopoints,withmutualinterferenceexplaining
whythepathswithleastactionpredominate.
19
specialcasesoftheintrinsicdirectednessofholisticprocesses.Thesystemasa
wholeconsequentlyacquiresitsownintrinsicteleology(or,better,entelechy).
4.2Non-separablestates
Themostobviousblowthatquantummechanicsstrikestomicro-physicalismcomes
fromtheundeniablenon-separabilityofthequantumpropertiesofentangled
systems.AsnotedbyTeller(1986),Healey(1991),SilbersteinandMcGeever(1999,
pp.186-90),KronzandTiehen(2002,pp.325-330),alongwithmanyothers,the
quantumstateofapairofentangledparticles(particlesinthesingletstate,asinthe
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosenthoughtexperiment)isirreduciblyastateofthepairas
such:itisnotevendeterminedbytheintrinsicpropertiesoftheparticles
(consideredindividually)orthespatialdistanceorrelativevelocitybetweenthem.
Inthesecases,thewholeisliterallymorethanthesumofitsparts.
Foralongtime,philosophersassumedthatthissortofquantumweirdnesscouldbe
limitedsomehowtothemicroscopicdomain,beingalmostcompletelyswampedat
thephenomenologicallevelbyphenomenathatcompletelyconformtothe
requirementsofmicrophysicalism.However,itturnsoutthatthiskindofquantum
holismisverymuchtheruleratherthantheexception,producingmeasurable
resultsatthephenomenologicallevelnearlyallthetime(Primas1980,p.41).
4.3Themeasurementproblem
Theso-called“Copenhagen”interpretation(theinterpretationgiventothequantum
theorydevisedbyNielsBohrandWernerHeisenberg)givesusreasontodoubtall
threeofthesepremises.IntheCopenhageninterpretation,themicrophysicalfacts
consistmerelyintheattributiontomicroscopicentitiesofcertainpotentialities,and
thesepotentialitiesessentiallyincludecausalrelationstomacroscopicsystems.A
quantumdoesn’ttypicallyhaveanypositionormomentumatall(notevenavague
20
orfuzzyone):ithasmerelythepotentialtointeractwithmacroscopicsystemsasif
ithadsomedefinitepositionormomentum(orotherobservablefeature)atthe
momentoftheinteraction.Thus,thequantumworld(sounderstood)canbeneither
metaphysicallyfundamentalnoracompletebasisforthemacroscopicworld.
Ofcourse,thissituationgivesriseimmediatelytoapuzzle:what,then,isthe
relationshipbetweenthemacroscopicandquantumworlds?Presumably,
macroscopicphysicalobjectsarewhollycomposedofquanta.How,then,canthe
quantafailtobemetaphysicallyfundamentalandcompletebasisforthe
macroscopicworld?
Hylomorphismoffersareadyanswertothispuzzle.Themicroscopicconstituentsof
macroscopicobjectshave(atthelevelofactuality)onlyanindirectrelationtospace
andtime:theyarelocated(roughly)somewhereatatimeonlyquaconstituentsof
somefundamental,macro-ormesoscopicsubstance(intheAristoteliansense).Such
microscopicobjectsarenotmetaphysicallyfundamentalintheirentirety,andtheir
metaphysicallyfundamentalfeaturesdonotprovideacompletebasisforthe
featuresofthesubstantialwholestheycompose.Thisisawelcomeresult,sinceit
makesphysicaltheorycompatiblewiththePhaedoargument.
TheCopenhageninterpretationisnottheonlywaytomakesenseofquantum
mechanics.Recentyearshaveseentheemergenceofthemany-worlds(Everett)
interpretation,Bohm’smechanics,andvariousobjectivecollapsetheories.Thevery
factthatwefacenowaplethoraofcompetinginterpretationsofquantummechanics
putstherelationshipbetweenphysicsandmetaphysicsonaverydifferentfooting
fromtheonetheyhadundertheclassicalparadigm.Micro-physicalismwastheonly
plausibleinterpretationofclassicalphysics.Incontrast,someinterpretationsof
quantummechanicsareextremelyfriendlytohylomorphism.Iwillsketchoneof
these,whichIwillcall‘PluralisticQuantumHylomorphism’.
21
PluralisticQuantumHylomorphismisaninterpretationinspiredbysomeremarks
ofHeisenberg(1958),anddefendedbyWolfgangSmith(2005),NancyCartwright
(1999)andStanleyGrove(2008).Onthisview,theworldconsistsofavarietyof
domains,eachatadifferentlevelofscale.Mostofthesedomainsarefullyclassical,
consistingofentitieswithmutuallycompatibleorcommutativeproperties.Atmost
onedomainisaccuratelydescribedbyquantummechanics.Sincelocationdoesnot
(forquantumobjects)“commute”withotherobservables,likemomentum,the
quantumobjectsareonlyintermittentlylocatedinordinary,three-dimensional
space,althoughtheyalwaysretainaprobabilityofinteractingwithclassicalobjects
atadefinitelocation.Interactionbetweenquantumpropertiesandclassical
properties(includingthoseofexperimentersandtheirinstruments)precipitatesan
objectivecollapseofthequantumobject’swavefunction,asaresultofthejoint
exerciseoftherelevantcausalpowersoftheobjectandtheinstruments,andnot
becauseoftheinvolvementofhumanconsciousnessandchoice.
PaulFeyerabendofferedahelpfultripartitedistinctionofphilosophiesofscience:
thepositivist,therealist,andthestructural(Feyerabend1983).Thepositivististhe
anti-realist,whodeniesthatrealityhasanystructurethatisindependentofour
interestsandassumptions,the“realist”believesthatthereisasingle,unified
structureofreality,realizedatasinglescale,andthestructuralisttakesrealityto
compriseapluralityofrelativelyautonomousstructures.Therealistormonist
perspectivecontributedtotheriseanddevelopmentofmodernscience,butthe
quantumrevolutionhasseenareturntothepluralismofAristotle:
“EinsteinandespeciallyBohrintroducedtheideathat[scientific]theories
maybecontext-dependent,differenttheoriesbeingvalidindifferent
domains.Combiningtheseideaswithabstractmathematicssuchasvarious
algebras,latticetheory,andlogicsthenledtoapowerfulrevivalofthe
structuralapproach.Thusthesearchforageneralizedquantumtheoryis
exactlyinAristotle’sspirit:wedonottakeitforgrantedthatthequantum
22
theorieswehavearethebestwayofdealingwitheverything,lookingeither
fornewinterpretationsorsuitableapproximationmethodstosolvehairy
cases;werathertrytoidentifydomainsandtheoriessuitedforthemand
thenlookforwaysofrelatingthesetheoriestoeachother.”(Feyerabend
1983,vii)
HereishowNancyCartwrightdescribesthispluralistview:
“…quantumrealistsshouldtakethequantumstateseriouslyasagenuine
featureofrealityandnottakeitasaninstrumentalistwould,asaconvenient
wayofsummarisinginformationaboutotherkindsofproperties.Norshould
theyinsistthatotherdescriptionscannotbeassignedbesidesquantum
descriptions.Forthatistosupposenotonlythatthetheoryistruebutthatit
providesacompletedescriptionofeverythingofinterestinreality.”
(Cartwright1999,p.232)
Thus,thehylomorphicinterpretationcombinesfeaturesofboththeoldCopenhagen
andnewerobjectivecollapseinterpretations.Itisafullyrealistviewaboutthe
microscopic,unlikeBohr’sversionoftheCopenhageninterpretation,anditis
ontologicallypluralistic,incontrasttootherobjectivecollapsetheories.Itadmitsa
pluralityofobjectivedomains,anditdoesn’ttreatwavecollapseasaphenomenon
explainablewithinthepurequantumdomain,bysomeas-yet-unknown
microphysicalinteraction.
UnliketheCopenhagenview,thePQHMinterpretationfullyembracestherealityof
quantumobjectsandquantumstates.Inaddition,theCopenhagenviewsuffersfrom
beingtwonarrowlydualistic,distinguishingtheclassicalworldfromthequantum
world.Incontrast,thehylomorphicinterpretationembracesasalutarykindof
ontologicalpluralism,recognizingthatthenon-quantumorsupra-quantumworldis
23
itselfa“dappled”world(asNancyCartwrightputsit),dividingnaturallyinto
multipledomainsatmultiplescales.
PluralisticQuantumHylomorphismsharestwocrucialadvantageswiththe
Copenhagenview.First,itembracesrealismaboutclassicalobjectsandclassical
states,andsoitcanmakesenseofourexperimentalpracticesinastraightforward
way.Second,itfitstheactualpracticeofscientistswell,whoareinpractice
ontologicalpluralists(asNancyCartwrighthasdocumented).
5. Conclusion:BacktotheAristotelianfuture
Theholisticandteleologicalcharacterofquantummechanicsdoesnotbyitself
vindicatetherealityofteleologyandagencyatthebiologicalorpersonallevels.
However,itdoesdramaticallychangetheimaginativelandscapeofmodernscience,
makingthesuppositionoftop-down,formalcausationintherealmsofchemistry,
thermodynamics,biology,andpsychologyplausible.Infact,thetrendofsciencein
thelastfiftyyearshasbeentowardgreaterdifferentiation,notunity.Takingthese
scientificresultsattheirfacevaluemeansacceptingcausalagency(understoodin
Aristotelianterms)atmanylevels,includingthemacroscopiclevelofcomplete
organisms.Theideathattherecouldbeanaturalandfundamentalteleology
governinghumanchoicesisonceagainfullycredible,andGodastheultimatesource
andgroundofteleologyisonceagainanattractivepathfornaturaltheology.
Bibliography
Armstrong,DavidM.(1999),TheMind-BodyProblem(Boulder,Colorado:Westview
Press).
Bacon,Francis(1915),TheAdvancementofLearning(London:Dent).
Bernard,Claude(1966),Leconssurlesphenomenesdelaviecommuneauxanimaux
etauxvegetaux(Paris:LibrairePhilosophiqueJ.Vrin).
24
Cartwright,Nancy(1983),HowtheLawsofPhysicsLie(Oxford:ClarendonPress).
Cartwright,Nancy(1994),Nature’sCapacitiesandtheirMeasurement(Oxford:
ClarendonPress).
Cartwright,Nancy(1999),TheDappledWorld:AStudyoftheBoundariesofScience,
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Cross,Richard(1998),ThePhysicsofDunsScotus:TheScientificContextofa
TheologicalVision(Oxford:ClarendonPress).
Cross,Richard(1999),DunsScotus(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).
Dancy,Jonathan(2003),PracticalReality(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).
Descartes,Rene(1973),DiscourseontheMethodofRightlyConductingtheReason,
trans.ElizabethHaldaneandG.R.T.Ross,ThePhilosophicalWorksofDescartes,
VolumeI(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).
Dusek,Val(2001),“Aristotle'sFourCausesandContemporary‘Newtonian’
Dynamics,”inAristotleandContemporaryScience,vol.2,D.Sfendoni-Mentzou,J.
HarriangadiandD.M.Johnson(eds.),NewYork:PeterLang,pp.81-93.
Feser,Edward(2010),"Teleology:AShopper'sGuide,"PhilosophiaChristi12(1);
reprintedinEdwardFeser,Neo-ScholasticEssays(SouthBend,Indiana:St.
Augustine'sPress,2015),pp.49-58.
Feyerabend,Paul(1983),“Foreword,”inPrimas(1983),pp.i-xii.
Gilson,Etienne(1984),FromAristotletoDarwinandBackAgain:AJourneyinFinal
Causation,Species,andEvolution,trans.JohnLyon(UniversityofNotreDame
Press).
Grove,StanleyF.(2008),QuantumTheoryandAquinas’sDoctrineonMatter,Ph.D.
dissertation,CatholicUniversityofAmerica.
Heisenberg,Werner(1958),PhysicsandPhilosophy:TheRevolutioninModern
Science,London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin.
Healey,Richard(1991),“Holismandnonseparability,”JournalofPhilosophy88:393-
421.
Healey,Richard(2011),“ReductionandEmergenceinBose-EinsteinCondensates,”
FoundationsofPhysics41:1007-1030.
25
Koons,RobertC.(2000),RealismRegained:AnExactTheoryofCausation,Teleology,
andtheMind(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress).
Koons,RobertC.(2014),“Staunchvs.Faint-heartedHylomorphism:Towardan
AristotelianAccountofComposition,”ResPhilosophica91:1-27.
Korsgard,C.M.(1986),“ScepticismaboutPracticalReason,”JournalofPhilosophy
83:5-25.
Kronz,FrederickandJustinTiehen(2002),“Emergenceandquantummechanics.”
PhilosophyofScience69:324-347.
Lanczos,Cornelius(1986),TheVariationalPrinciplesofMechanics,4thedition,New
York:DoverPublications.
Leftow,Brian(2001),"SoulsDippedinDust:AquinasonSoulandBody,"inKevin
Corcoran,ed.,Body,SoulandSurvival(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress),120-
38.
Leftow,Brian(2010),"Soul,MindandBrain,"inGeorgeBealer&RobertKoons,eds.,
TheWaningofMaterialism(Oxford:OUP),395-416.
Lindsay,RobertBruceandHenryMorgenaw(1957),FoundationsofPhysics,New
York:DoverPublications.
Mackie,J.L.(1977),Ethics:InventingRightandWrong(Harmondsworth:Penguin).
McDonough,JeffreyK.(2008),“Leibniz'sTwoRealmsRevisited,”Nôus42:673-696
McDonough,JeffreyK.(2009),“LeibnizonNaturalTeleologyandtheLawsof
Optics,”PhilosophyandPhenomenologicalResearch78:505-544.
Molnar,George(2003),Powers:AStudyinMetaphysics(Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press).
Planck,Max(1960),“ThePrincipleofLeastAction,”InASurveyofPhysicalTheory,R.
JonesandD.H.Williams(trans.),NewYork:DoverPublications,pp.69-81.
Primas,Hans(1980),“FoundationsofTheoreticalChemistry,”InQuantumDynamics
forMolecules:TheNewExperimentalChallengetoTheorists,RG.Woolley(ed.),
NewYork:PlenumPress,pp.39-114.
Primas,Hans(1983),Chemistry,QuantumMechanics,andReductionism:Perspectives
inTheoreticalChemistry,Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
26
Schulman,AdamL.(1989),“QuantumandAristotelianPhysics,”Ph.D.dissertation,
HarvardUniversity.
Smith,Wolfgang(2005),TheQuantumEnigma:FindingtheHiddenKey,3rdedition,
SanRafael,Calif.:AngelicoPress.
Thalos,Mariam(2013).WithoutHierarchy:TheScaleFreedomoftheUniverse,
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Toepfer,Georg(2012),“Teleologyanditsconstitutiveroleforbiologyasthescience
oforganizedsystemsinnature,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofSciencePartC:
StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences43:113-
119.