Franklin and Seifert (2021) argue that solving the measurement problem of quantum mechanics (QM) also answers a question central to the philosophy of chemistry: that of how to reconcile QM with the existence of definite molecular structures. This conclusion may appear premature, however, because interactions play a crucial role in shaping molecules, but we generally lack detailed models of how this is accomplished. Given this explanatory gap, simply choosing an interpretation of QM is insufficient, unless the interpretation also has relevant (...) conceptual resources that address how spatially organized molecules are composed. This article seeks to close the gap, using the interpretation provided by relational quantum mechanics (RQM), along with a posited causal ontology. This framework, which entails the co-existence of multiple perspectives on systems within a single world, offers a path toward reconciling the quantum mechanical view of molecules with another conception more congenial to chemistry: that of molecules shaped by patterns of localizing interactions. (shrink)

An aim of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world. A primary means for doing so is by providing explanations, which often proceed by tracing the causes of phenomena. How can a causal explanation lead to understanding? While explanations can take many forms, I argue that to succeed they must embody a conception of causation shared with their audience. The challenge then, is to describe this conception and detail its role in explanation. While there is good evidence (...) that scientists employ more than one causal concept, I argue that the concept of productive causation (centered on the notion of bringing about change via a connection) has a primary role in natural science explanations. After critiquing other philosophical accounts, I develop a new theory of productive causation and show how it provides an underpinning for successful explanations. The heart of the theory is a network of persisting processes that possess dispositions toward change-producing mutual interactions. I argue that in a good explanation, the scientific entities, properties and activities invoked will correspond to the theory’s depiction of causal structure. One important dimension of the theory describes how repeated patterns of interaction can give rise to a hierarchy of composite processes. This allows the theory to account for stabilized entities at various spatio-temporal scales. In turn, this enables the approach to be applicable throughout the natural sciences. After starting with simple examples, I show how the theory deals with more challenging cases from physics to biology. I conclude that the approach illuminates how explanations of various forms across diverse disciplines can lead to scientific understanding. (shrink)

Quantum physics is the foundation for chemistry, but the concept of chemical bonding is not easily reconciled with quantum mechanical models of molecular systems. The quantum theory of atoms in molecules, developed by Richard F.W. Bader and colleagues, seeks to define bonding using a topological analysis of the electron density distribution. The “bond paths” identified by the analysis are posited as indicators of a special pairwise physical relationship between atoms. While elements of the theory remain subject to debate, I argue (...) that QTAIM embodies a distinctive interactive conception of bonding that is an attractive alternative to others previously discussed. (shrink)