- Volume 1 (2017)
- Vol. 1 (2017)
- >
- Issue 1
- No. 1
- >
- Pages 171 - 178
- pp. 171 - 178

The idea of applying mereological concepts to the study of cosmology is at once very old and very new, but it is dogged by a peculiar ambiguity. In speaking of mereology (or its more refined cousin, mereotopology) within the context of cosmology, is the approach specifically philosophical in character, or is it more physical/scientific? There are often overlaps between the two approaches, but in general they will employ differing methodological stances toward the mereological tools being employed. Yet the distinction is not one that is always respected. Very broadly, philosophical cosmology can be viewed as a general theory of explanation, whereas scientific cosmology can be viewed as a specific theory of nature, in both cases in the broadest terms possible. Where they differ, then, is over the question of whether nature is all there is in the cosmos. The original sense of the word ‘cosmos’ was of a system of order, so the question then becomes whether all order is strictly within nature, or possibly involves logical aspects that go beyond naturalism, depending on how widely or narrowly such ‘naturalism’ is conceived.

**1**
Arntzenius, F., (2008), “Gunk, Topology and Measure”, in Dean Zimmerman, ed., Oxford Studies in Metaphysics vol. 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 225-247.

**2**
Auxier, R.; Herstein G. L. The Quantum of Explanation: Whitehead’s Radical Empiricism, New York: Routledge Studies in American Philosophy.

**3**
Calosi, C.; Fano, V.; Tarozzi, G., (2011), “Quantum Ontology and Extensional Mereology”, Foundations of Physics, 41, 1740. doi:10.1007/s10701-011-9590-z.

**4**
Clarke, B., (1981), “A Calculus of Individuals Based on ‘Connection”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 22 (3): 204-218.

**5**
Clarke, B., (1985), “Individuals and Points”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 26 (1): 61-75.

**6**
Cohen, P. J., (2008), Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis, Mineola: Dover Publications.

**7**
De, Laguna, T., (1922), “Point, Line, and Surface, as Sets of Solids,” The Journal of Philosophy 19 (17): 449-461.

**8**
Freedman, M. F.; Quinn, F., (1990), Topology of 4-Manifolds, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

**9**
Herstein, G. L., (2006), Whitehead and the Measurement Problem of Cosmology, Frankfurt am Main: Ontos Verlag, 2006.

**10**
McDaniel, K., (2007), “Extended simples”, Philosophical Studies 133: 131-141.

**11**
McDaniel, K., (2000), “Extended Simples and Qualitative Heterogeneity”, The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 59, No. 235: 325-331. McHenry, L., 2011, “The Multiverse Conjecture: Whitehead’s Cosmic Epochs and Contemporary Cosmology”, Process Studies 40 (1): 5-24.

**12**
Lewis, D., (1991), Parts of Classes, Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.

**13**
Lowe, E. J., (1996), Subjects of Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

**14**
Ohta, N., (2002), “Introduction to Branes and M-Theory for Relativists and Cosmologists”, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement No. 148: 1-28.

**15**
Pratt, I.; Schoop, D., (1998), “A Complete Axiom System for Polygonal Mereotopology of the Real Plane”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 27: 621-658

**16**
Rea, M. C., (2001), “How to Be an Eleatic Monist”, Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 15, Metaphysics, 129-151.

**17**
Russell, B., (1903), Principles of Mathematics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

**18**
Russell, J. S., (2008), “The Structure of Gunk: Adventures in the Ontology of Space,” in Zimmerman, D., ed., Oxford Studies in Metaphysics vol. 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 248-274.

**19**
Schaffer, J., (2010), “The Priority of the Whole”, The Philosophical Review 119 (1): 31-76.

**20**
Siegel, W., (2001), Introduction to String Field Theory, https://arxiv.org/pdf/hepth/0107094v1.pdf, verified January 27, 2017.

**21**
Simons, P. Parts: A Study in Ontology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

**22**
Simons, P., (2004), “Extended Simples: A Third Way Between Atoms and Gunk”, The Monist, 87: 371-84.

**23**
Simons, P., (2006), “Real Wholes, Real Parts: Mereology without Algebra”, The Journal of Philosophy 103 (12) Special Issue: Parts and Wholes, 597-613.

**24**
Smolin, L., (2007)., The Trouble with Physics, Boston: Mariner Books.

**25**
Tarski, A., (1983 [1929]), “Foundations of the Geometry of Solids,” in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, trans. J. H. Woodger, 2nd ed., Indianapolis: Hackett, 24-29.

**26**
Tong, D., (2009), String Theory: University of Cambridge Part III Mathematical Tripos, https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0333, verified January 27, 2017.

**27**
Whitehead, A. N., (1919), Enquiry into the Principles of Natural Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

**28**
Whitehead, A. N., (1920), The Concept of Nature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

**29**
Whitehead, A. N., (1922), The Principle of Relativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

**30**
Whitehead, A. N., (1929), Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology, corrected edition, edited by David Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne, New York: The Free Press, 2nd edition 1978.

**31**
Woit, P., (2006), Not even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law, New York: Basic Books.