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.