Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Reductionism?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, especially continuous phase transitions, impose a challenge for reduction- ism. My main contention is that classical phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with the notion of limiting reduction, which re- lates the behavior of physical quantities in different theories under certain limiting conditions. I argue that this conclusion follows even after rec- ognizing the existence of two infinite limits involved in the treatment of continuous phase transitions

Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Reductionism?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, especially continuous phase transitions, impose a challenge for reduction- ism. My main contention is that classical phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with the notion of limiting reduction, which re- lates the behavior of physical quantities in different theories under certain limiting conditions. I argue that this conclusion follows even after rec- ognizing the existence of two infinite limits involved in the treatment of continuous phase transitions

Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Reductionism?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, especially continuous phase transitions, impose a challenge for reduction- ism. My main contention is that classical phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with the notion of limiting reduction, which re- lates the behavior of physical quantities in different theories under certain limiting conditions. I argue that this conclusion follows even after rec- ognizing the existence of two infinite limits involved in the treatment of continuous phase transitions

Phase transitions in science: selected philosophical topics

This dissertation examines various philosophical issues associated with the physics of phase transitions. In particular, i) I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions impose a challenge for reductionism, ii) I evaluate the widespread idea that an infinite idealization is essential to give an account of these phenomena, and iii) I discuss the possibility of using the physics of phase transitions to offer a reductive explanation of cooperative behavior in economics. Against prominent claims to the contrary, I defend the view that phase transitions do not undermine reductionism and that they are in fact compatible with the reduction of thermodynamics to statistical mechanics. I argue that this conclusion follows even in the case of continuous phase transitions, where there are two infinite limits involved. My second claim is that the infinite idealizations involved in the physical treatment of phase transitions although useful are not indispensable to give an account of the phenomena. This follows from the fact that the thermodynamic limit provides us with a controllable approximation of the behavior of finite systems. My third claim is that the physics of phase transitions, in particular renormalization group methods, can constitute a promising way of giving a reductive explanation of stock market crashes. This will serve not only to motivate the use of statistical mechanical methods in the study of economic behavior, but also to contradict the claim that renormalization group explanations are always non-reductive explanations

Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Reductionism?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, especially continuous phase transitions, impose a challenge for reduction- ism. My main contention is that classical phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with the notion of limiting reduction, which re- lates the behavior of physical quantities in different theories under certain limiting conditions. I argue that this conclusion follows even after rec- ognizing the existence of two infinite limits involved in the treatment of continuous phase transitions

Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Intertheoretic Reduction?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, both first-order and continuous, pose a challenge for intertheoretic reduction. My main contention is that phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with a notion of inter-theoretic reduction that combines Nagelian reduction and what Nickles (1973) called reduction2. I also argue that, even if the same approach to reduction applies to both types of phase transitions, there is a crucial difference in their physical treatment. In fact, in addition to the thermodynamic limit, in the case of continuous phase transitions there is a second infinite limit involved that is related with the number of iterations in the renormalization group transformation. I contend that the existence of this second limit, which has been largely underappreciated in the philosophical debate, marks an important difference in the reduction of first-order and continuous phase transitions and also in the justification of the idealizations involved in these two cases

Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Reductionism?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, especially continuous phase transitions, impose a challenge for reduction- ism. My main contention is that classical phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with the notion of limiting reduction, which re- lates the behavior of physical quantities in different theories under certain limiting conditions. I argue that this conclusion follows even after rec- ognizing the existence of two infinite limits involved in the treatment of continuous phase transitions

Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Reductionism?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, especially continuous phase transitions, impose a challenge for reduction- ism. My main contention is that classical phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with the notion of limiting reduction, which re- lates the behavior of physical quantities in different theories under certain limiting conditions. I argue that this conclusion follows even after rec- ognizing the existence of two infinite limits involved in the treatment of continuous phase transitions

Phase Transitions: A Challenge for Intertheoretic Reduction?

In this paper, I analyze the extent to which classical phase transitions, both first-order and continuous, pose a challenge for intertheoretic reduction. My main contention is that phase transitions are compatible with reduction, at least with a notion of inter-theoretic reduction that combines Nagelian reduction and what Nickles (1973) called reduction2. I also argue that, even if the same approach to reduction applies to both types of phase transitions, there is a crucial difference in their physical treatment. In fact, in addition to the thermodynamic limit, in the case of continuous phase transitions there is a second infinite limit involved that is related with the number of iterations in the renormalization group transformation. I contend that the existence of this second limit, which has been largely underappreciated in the philosophical debate, marks an important difference in the reduction of first-order and continuous phase transitions and also in the justification of the idealizations involved in these two cases