Skip to main content

Super-Humeanism and free will

Abstract

Super-Humeanism is an even more parsimonious ontology than Lewisian standard Humean metaphysics in that it rejects intrinsic properties (local qualties). There are point objects, but all there is to them are their relative positions (distance relations) and the change of them. Everything else supervenes on the Humean mosaic thus conceived. Hence, dynamical parameters (such as mass, charge, energy, a wave-function, etc.) come in on a par with the laws through their position in the best system. The paper sets out how Super-Humeanism has the conceptual means to reject van Inwagen’s consequence argument not by taking the laws to depend on us (as on standard Humean metaphysics), but by taking the initial values of the dynamical parameters that enter into the laws to be dependent on the motions that actually occur in the universe, including the motions of human bodies. The paper spells out the advantages of this proposal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. See Jackson (1994, p. 25) for this use of the term “location” or “located in”. Price (2004) uses the term “placement”.

  2. See also Jackson (1998, pp. 23–24).

  3. See e.g. Black (2000).

  4. See e.g. Bird (2007).

  5. See Esfeld and Deckert (2017, ch. 2). See Hall (2009, section 5.2) as well as Loewer (2007) for forerunners of Super-Humeanism. See Wilson (2018), Marmodoro (2018), Darby (2018), Lazarovici (2018), Matarese (2019) and Simpson (2019) for critical discussions of Super-Humeanism.

  6. See also Lewis (1986a, pp. 76–78).

  7. Such an arbitrariness threatens, by contrast, the “package deal account” proposed by Loewer (2007) that is also directed against Lewis’s natural properties.

  8. See also van Inwagen (1975) for an earlier and more detailed version of the argument.

  9. See already Loewer (1996).

  10. The most prominent such conception goes back to Frankfurt (1971).

  11. See also Beebee and Mele (2002) for a detailed argument. See already Swartz (2003, ch. 11, in particular p. 127).

  12. See e.g. Hall (2009) for a clear exposition of these arguments.

  13. See again Beebee and Mele (2002, pp. 209–217).

  14. See Hüttemann and Loew (2019) for an argument that it is not convincing.

  15. See Esfeld and Deckert (2017, ch. 2.3) for a detailed argument.

  16. See Miller (2014), Esfeld (2014), Callender (2015) and Bhogal and Zee (2017).

  17. See Forrest (1985) for one such proposal.

  18. For such proposals, see Hoefer (2002) and Ismael (2016, ch. 6 and pp. 227–230). See Brennan (2007) for a criticism of Hoefer’s proposal.

References

  • Beebee, H., & Mele, A. R. (2002). Humean compatibilism. Mind, 111, 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhogal, H., & Zee, P. (2017). What the Humean should say about entanglement. Noûs, 51, 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A. (2007). Nature’s metaphysics Laws and properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Black, R. (2000). Against quidditism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 78, 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J. (2007). Free will in the block universe. Philosophia, 35, 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callender, C. (2015). One world, one beable. Synthese, 192, 3153–3177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, G. (2018). A minimalist Humeanism? Metasience, 27, 433–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esfeld, M. (2014). Quantum Humeanism. Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esfeld, M., & Deckert, D.-A. (2017). A minimalist ontology of the natural world. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, P. (1985). Backward causation in defence of free will. Mind, 94, 210–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, N. (2009). Humean reductionism about laws of nature. Unpublished manuscript, http://philpapers.org/rec/HALHRA

  • Hoefer, C. (2002). Freedom from the inside out. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 50, 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggett, N. (2006). The regularity account of relational spacetime. Mind, 115, 41–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hüttemann, A., & Loew, C. (2019). Freier Wille und Naturgesetze—Überlegungen zum Konsequenzargument. In K. von Stoch, S. Wendel, M. Breul, & A. Langenfeld (Eds.), Streit um die Freiheit—Philosophische und theologische Perspektiven (pp. 77–93). Paderborn: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismael, J. (2016). How physics makes us free. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, F. (1994). Armchair metaphysics. In J. O’Leary-Hawthorne & M. Michael (Eds.), Philosophy in mind (pp. 23–42). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarovici, D. (2018). Super-Humeanism: A starving ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 64, 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1981). Are we free to break the laws? Theoria, 47, 113–121. Reprinted in Lewis (1986b), pp. 291–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1986a). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1986b). Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (2009). Ramseyan humility. In D. Braddon-Mitchell & R. Nola (Eds.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism (pp. 203–222). Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewer, B. (1996). Freedom from physics: Quantum mechanics and free will. Philosophical Topics, 24, 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewer, B. (2007). Laws and natural properties. Philosophical Topics, 35, 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. (1919). The science of mechanics: a critical and historical account of its development. Fourth edition. (T. J. McCormack, Trans). Chicago: Open Court.

  • Marmodoro, A. (2018). Atomism, holism and structuralism: Costs and benefits of a minimalist ontology of the world. Metasience, 27, 421–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matarese, V. (2019). A challenge for Super-Humeanism: The problem of immanent comparisons. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01914-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E. (2014). Quantum entanglement, Bohmian mechanics, and Humean supervenience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92, 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, H. (2004). Naturalism without representationalism. In M. de Caro & D. Macarthur (Eds.), Naturalism in question (pp. 71–88). Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, W. M. R. (2019). What’s the matter with Super-Humeanism? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, N. (2003). The concept of physical law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Inwagen, P. (1975). The incomptability of free will and determinism. Philosophical Studies, 27, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. (2018). Super-Humeanism: Insufficiently naturalistic and insufficiently explanatory. Metasience, 27, 427–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the organizers and the participants of the workshop “Humeanisms” in Budapest in July 2018 as well as three anonymous referees for their helpful comments on the draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Esfeld.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esfeld, M. Super-Humeanism and free will. Synthese 198, 6245–6258 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02460-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02460-x

Keywords

  • Consequence argument
  • Free will
  • Humean metaphysics
  • David Lewis
  • Super-Humeanism
  • Peter van Inwagen