I argue that there are two distinct approaches to understanding reduction: the ontology-first approach and the theory-first approach. They concern the relation between ontological reduction and inter-theoretic reduction. Further, I argue for the significance of this distinction by demonstrating that either one or the other approach has been taken as an implicit assumption in, and has in fact shaped, our understanding of what statistical mechanics is. More specifically, I argue that the Boltzmannian framework of statistical mechanics assumes and relies on (...) the ontology-first approach, whereas the Gibbsian framework should assume the theory-first approach. -/- . (shrink)

Many discussions in the metaphysics and philosophy of physics literature aim to use physics as a guide to elucidate what the world really, fundamentally is like. However, we don’t yet have a confirmed fundamental theory of physics—what’s the next best thing we can possibly say about the fundamental that is properly informed by our best theories of physics? This paper offers a starting point to address this question. It focuses on the literature on the ontology of quantum mechanics, where the (...) problem is especially salient: Many proposals aim at drawing the fundamental ontology of the world from quantum mechanics, even though they often focus on a non-fundamental theory such as nonrelativistic quantum particle mechanics. I argue that quantum mechanics can plausibly be informative about the fundamental if it is taken as a general framework theory, which covers a range of specific concrete theories, including nonrelativistic quantum particle mechanics, the Standard Model of particle physics, and string theory. I use Wavefunction Realism as an example to demonstrate what kind of ontological lessons about the world at the fundamental level the quantum framework may teach us. (shrink)

Laws of nature are often considered to have played a crucial role in the development of modern science and continue to attract discussions in contemporary philosophy. Is there a similar idea developed in Chinese traditions? Despite its evident significance, there has not been much discussion on this question since Needham (1951) and Bodde (1979). Needham’s answer is no, and one of his main reasons is that China lacks the idea of a divine celestial lawgiver imposing order on natural phenomena; Bodde (...) largely agrees with him. In this paper, I explain why Needham’s arguments are problematic, and by examining Chinese classical texts, I argue that there is an idea of laws of nature, embodied by two notions, dao 道 and li 理. (shrink)

Many philosophers who defend a Humean account of laws of nature also endorse scientific realism, such as David Lewis and Barry Loewer. It seems as if scientific realism and Humean accounts are orthogonal to, and so are naturally compatible with, one another. I argue otherwise: Humean accounts of laws are at odds with scientific realism in a way that would require significant changes to the standard formulations of scientific realism or Humean accounts to reconcile the two. I focus on two (...) of the most prominent Humean accounts, Lewis' Best System Account and Loewer's Package Deal Account, as examples and argue: Humean accounts like Loewer's, which take the fundamental ontology and laws as a package deal, conflict with scientific realism, while Humean accounts that do not take a package deal, such as Lewis's, do not conform to scientific practice. (shrink)