Two Approaches to the Identity of Processes in BFO

This paper aims to explore processes and their identity with a focus on the upper ontology Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). We begin with a classification based on two basic classes of changes of independent continuants: changes with respect to a single specifically dependent continuant thereof or with respect to the spatial region that its parts occupy. We accordingly distinguish two kinds of simple processes: specifically dependent continuant changes and spatial changes. Next, we investigate a compositional approach to the identity of processes: the identity of any process is determined by the identity of the simple processes that compose them. Then, we consider a causal approach to the identity of processes with recourse to a dispositional view of processes according to which any process is a realization of some disposition. We also examine assumptions on which these two approaches to the identity of processes are based

Platonic Dispositionalism

In this paper I argue that if one subscribes to dispositionalism — the view that natural properties are irreducibly dispositional in character — then one ought to favour a Platonic view of properties. That is, dispositionalists ought to view properties as transcendent universals. I argue for this on the grounds that only with transcendent universals in play can two central dispositionalist platitudes be accounted for in a satisfactory way. Given that dispositionalism is becoming an increasingly influential view in the metaphysics of science, my argument, if successful, suggests that Platonism will see something of a revival in contemporary metaphysics. This new kind of Platonism is shown to have some striking metaphysical and epistemological consequences

Weak Priority Monism: A New Theory of the Fundamental

In this PhD dissertation, I am defending a new version of Priority Monism, which I call Weak Priority Monism: that the Cosmos is fundamental and is identical to the collective plurality of its proper parts. This distinguishes it from the version of Priority Monism defended by Jonathan Schaffer, in that, unlike him, I accept the thesis composition as identity. I argue that Weak Priority Monism is preferable to Schaffer’s monism as not only can all the arguments for his version of monism be also utilised by the weak priority monist, but they also have two decisive advantages over Schafferian Priority Monism (i.e. what I call Strong Priority Monism). Firstly, they are able to explain how the Cosmos can ground all its proper parts in ‘weak’ junky worlds; and secondly, they have a novel solution to the problem of heterogeneity which is superior to any solution available to Schaffer. In accepting composition as identity, however, Weak Priority Monism is a controversial view. It might be thought, for one, that composition as identity entails that the irreflexivity of grounding/dependence is violated: as if some things are identical to the mereological fusion they are grounded in, then it would seemingly be the case that those things grounded themselves. However, I will show that this is not necessarily the case, and that we can make sense of some plurality of things collectively grounding each of those things in the plurality, without it being the case that each of those things ground themselves. Indeed, as I shall argue, there is still a distinction between the fundamental and derivative, even if turns out that all the proper parts of the Cosmos taken collectively are fundamental. Weak Priority Monism then, as we shall see, is a promising new position on what is fundamental

Dispositions

This thesis proposes that key, competing theories of dispositions mistake and conflate how we identify, designate and talk about dispositions and dispositional terms for the nature of dispositions and the meaning of dispositional terms when they argue that: a) dispositions are extrinsic properties of their bearers (Boyle 1666) b) all properties are purely dispositional (Bird 2007) c) all properties are purely categorical (there are no dispositional properties) (Armstrong in AMP 1996) d) dispositional and categorical properties are separate and distinct properties (Prior, Pargetter and Jackson 1982). In so doing these theories make unwarranted and unsupported ontological conclusions about dispositions. The thesis traces the principal source of this confusion and conflation to a reliance on the counterfactual analysis of dispositions that wrongly encourages the conflation of a disposition (say fragility) with its manifestation (shattering). There is good reason to hold that the counterfactual analysis of dispositions is false — the truth of a counterfactual statement (such as “if x were dropped x would break”) is neither necessary nor sufficient for the truth of a dispositional ascription (such as “x is fragile”)

Ontologies du risque

Les ontologies appliquées sont des outils informatiques de représentation et de classification des entités de divers domaines. Elles servent à structurer les données de manière à permettre l'échange de données entre des systèmes d'information différents sans perte ou distorsion de la signification des données transmises d'un système à un autre. Les ontologies appliquées sont utilisées notamment dans le domaine biomédical. Dans ce domaine, une entité importante est le risque. On retrouve effectivement de nombreuses instances de risques en sciences biomédicales : les risques de maladie, les risques chirurgicaux, les effets secondaires, etc. Une caractérisation ontologique cohérente et philosophiquement informée du risque est donc nécessaire pour les ontologies appliquées. En effet, le risque est une entité caractérisée par des traits paradoxaux, tel que son caractère objectif et son caractère subjectif ou son caractère actuel et son caractère possible, notamment. Également, plusieurs définitions du risque sont proposées dans la littérature philosophique et dans différents domaines scientifiques : il est donc nécessaire d'analyser ces différentes conceptions du risque afin de dégager une conception adéquate du risque pour le domaine biomédical. C'est à ce projet qu'est dédié ce mémoire. Après la présentation du domaine de recherche dans lequel il s'inscrit, j'analyse les principales conceptions proposées dans la littérature et je propose de définir un risque pour un agent comme une disposition dont la manifestation est indésirable pour cet agent. J'explique ensuite ce qu'est une disposition et en vertu de quels critères la manifestation possible d'une disposition est indésirable pour un agent donné. Finalement, je propose une formalisation du risque dans l'ontologie appliquée Basic Formal Ontology sur la base de mon analyse philosophique du risque

Wholeness and internal relatedness: a Bradleyan critique of recent holistic metaphysics

According to David Lewis’ influential thesis of Humean Supervenience, the world is a plurality of self-contained individuals standing in external relations of spatiotemporal distance. In the last decades, this thesis has been under attack by what I call ‘holistic ontologies’, the most salient of which are Dispositional Essentialism, Ontic Structural Realism, Priority Monism, and Existence Monism. These reactions obey different but closely related suspicions against the central features of Humean Supervenience. On one hand, there are suspicions against the idea of external relations; on the other hand, there are suspicions against the idea of self-contained plurals. Common to these holistic ontologies is to conceive the world not as an externally related heap but, in different degrees of strength, as an ‘internally related whole’. This work, following Bradley’s stance against relations, puts under critical scrutiny the merits of these holistic ontologies. The central aims are to make explicit the different senses of ‘wholeness’ and ‘internal relatedness’ that they happen to endorse; make explicit their internal flaws; and show the relative superiority of Existence Monism. As it happens, Existence Monism vindicates Bradley’s core ideas about relations, namely: that external relations are unable to relate; that internal relations are inherently unstable; and that all relations–external and internal–are better understood as imperfect abstractions from a more substantial, non-relational, kind of unity. I conclude with some skeptical remarks against my own metaphysical preferences and against ontology in general

A critique of Humean and anti-Humean metaphysics of cause and law

It is my contention that physics and metaphysics (or at least the aspects of metaphysics to be considered in this thesis) broadly strive to achieve common goals: to understand what our physical system is constituted by, and both how, and why it evolves in the way that it does. Metaphysicians, as well as the scientific disciplines, play an important role in our understanding of the universe. In recent years, physicists have focussed on finding accurate mathematical formalisms of the evolution of our physical system - if a metaphysician can uncover the metaphysical underpinnings of these formalisms; that is, why these formalisms seem to consistently map the universe, then our understanding of the world and the things in it is greatly enhanced. Science, then, plays a very important role in our project, as the best scientific formalisms provide us with what we, as metaphysicians, should be trying to interpret – but these interpretations are integral to understanding the nature of natural laws and causation. In this thesis I examine existing metaphysical views of what a law is (both from a conceptual and from a metaphysical perspective), show how closely causation is linked to laws, and provide a priori arguments for and against each of these positions. Ultimately, I provide an analysis of a number of metaphysics of natural laws and causation, apply these accounts to our best scientific theories, and see how these metaphysics fit in with our concepts of cause and law. Although I do not attempt a definitive metaphysical account myself, I conclude that any successful metaphysic will be a broadly Humean one, and furthermore that given the concepts of cause and law that shall be agreed upon, Humean theories allow for there to be causal sequences and laws (in line with our concepts) in the world

Wholeness and internal relatedness: a Bradleyan critique of recent holistic metaphysics

According to David Lewis’ influential thesis of Humean Supervenience, the world is a plurality of self-contained individuals standing in external relations of spatiotemporal distance. In the last decades, this thesis has been under attack by what I call ‘holistic ontologies’, the most salient of which are Dispositional Essentialism, Ontic Structural Realism, Priority Monism, and Existence Monism. These reactions obey different but closely related suspicions against the central features of Humean Supervenience. On one hand, there are suspicions against the idea of external relations; on the other hand, there are suspicions against the idea of self-contained plurals. Common to these holistic ontologies is to conceive the world not as an externally related heap but, in different degrees of strength, as an ‘internally related whole’. This work, following Bradley’s stance against relations, puts under critical scrutiny the merits of these holistic ontologies. The central aims are to make explicit the different senses of ‘wholeness’ and ‘internal relatedness’ that they happen to endorse; make explicit their internal flaws; and show the relative superiority of Existence Monism. As it happens, Existence Monism vindicates Bradley’s core ideas about relations, namely: that external relations are unable to relate; that internal relations are inherently unstable; and that all relations–external and internal–are better understood as imperfect abstractions from a more substantial, non-relational, kind of unity. I conclude with some skeptical remarks against my own metaphysical preferences and against ontology in general