 Entities on macro levels are represented by individual constants S, S1, S2, etc., and macro behaviors by variables Ψ, Ψ1, Ψ2, etc. Micro-level entities are symbolized by X, X1, X2, etc., and micro behaviors by variables Φ, Φ1, Φ2, etc. (Craver 2007, 153-60). Moreover, we refer to the behaviors of specific entities-S's Ψ-ing or X's Φ-ing-by means of specific variables-Ψ(S) and Φ(X). Contrary to generic variables, which represent behaviors as exhibited by any entities, specific variables represent behaviors of specific entities (Spohn 2006). For instance, Φ(X) = φi means that entity X exhibits the behavior φi. As we-like Craver-are only concerned with behaviors 1Although the relation of parthood raises numerous metaphysical questions, authors working on mechanistic explanation typically sidestep the topic (Harbecke 2010 is a commendable exception), as they employ a metaphysically "thin" notion of parthood. This notion-which we shall employ, too-is the notion of containment in a phenomenon's spatiotemporal extension, a notion formally defined by the axioms of Ground Mereology (Casati and Varzi 1999, ch. 3). 4 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 3 Φ4 2 31 5 7Φ1 Φ Φ 6 Ψ Ψ Figure 1: An example of a phenomenon Ψ2 with three constituents, Φ2, Φ3 and Φ6, and two non-constituting parts, Φ4 and Φ5. Dashed lines represent constitution, directed edges symbolize causation, and the dotted lines stand for spatiotemporal overlap. of specific entities, we can dispense with generic behavioral variables altogether, which, in turn, allows us to treat the specificity of specific variables implicitly, and to abbreviate our notation by simply writing Ψ for Ψ(S) and Φ for Φ(X). Phenomena typically have a multitude of spatiotemporal parts, only a proper subset of which are constitutively relevant to them. Likewise, they tend to be involved in manifold causal interactions with non-constituents. Figure 1 provides an illustration: the phenomenon Ψ2 in the macro-level ellipse has five parts in the micro
Entities on macro levels are represented by individual constants S, S1, S2, etc. , and macro behaviors by variable star Ψ, Ψ1, Ψ2, etc. Micro - degree entities are symbolized by X, X1, X2, etc. , and micro behaviors by variable Φ, Φ1, Φ2, etc. (Craver 2007, 153 - 60). Moreover, we refer to the behavior of specific entity - S's Ψ - ing or X's Φ - ing - by means of specific variables - Ψ(S) and Φ(X). Contrary to generic variables, which represent behavior as exhibited by any entities, specific variable present behaviors of specific entities (Spohn 2006). For instance, Φ(X) = φi means that entity X exhibits the demeanor φi. As we - like Craver - are only concerned with behavior 1Although the relation of parthood raises numerous metaphysical motion, authors work on mechanistic explanation typically sidestep the topic (Harbecke 2010 is a commendable exception), as they employ a metaphysically " thin " impression of parthood. This notion - which we shall employ, too - is the notion of containment in a phenomenon's spatiotemporal extension, a notion formally define by the axiom of Ground Mereology (Casati and Varzi 1999, ch. 3). 4 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 3 Φ4 2 31 5 7Φ1 Φ Φ 6 Ψ Ψ Figure 1: An example of a phenomenon Ψ2 with three constituents, Φ2, Φ3 and Φ6, and two non - constituting parts, Φ4 and Φ5. Dashed lines represent constitution, direct edges symbolize causation, and the dashed line resist for spatiotemporal overlap. of specific entities, we can distribute with generic behavioral variables altogether, which, in turn, allows us to regale the specificity of specific variables implicitly, and to abbreviate our notation by simply writing Ψ for Ψ(S) and Φ for Φ(X). Phenomena typically have a battalion of spatiotemporal parts, only a proper subset of which are constitutively relevant to them. Likewise, they tend to be involved in manifold causal interactions with non - constituents. Figure 1 leave an illustration: the phenomenon Ψ2 in the macro - level ellipse has five parts in the micro
 Enhities on macro levels ave represented bi undivivual cohstants R, S1, S2, etc., and macro behaviord vy vaeiables Ψ, Ψ1, Ψ2, etc. Micro-lexel entitpes are stmboouzed by X, E1, X2, etc., and midvo bekatiors by variabkes Φ, Φ1, Φ2, etc. (Craver 2007, 153-60). Moremvdr, we refer to the behaviors of specisic entotles-S's Ψ-ing or X'f Φ-inb-fy msans of specific variables-Ψ(S) and Φ(X). Dontrarj to generic varisbles, which represent behagiord as exhibited by wny entitiew, spqxific variabues represtnc behaviors of specific entities (Spohn 2006). Fof inscance, Φ(X) = φi neqns jhat entity E exhifits the behavior φi. Ds we-lile Craver-are okly cmncwrned with behaviors 1Elthough the relatiog of partvokd raises numerouw netapvysiwal dyesgiohs, ahthors wocking on medhanistic ezplanation typicallu fpcestep the tkpic (Hwrfecke 2010 is a commendable exception), as thty emlloy a metaphysically "tyin" notion of parthoof. This noeion-which we shall employ, too-is the notion of condainmxng iu a phdbolenon's spatiotemporal extension, a notion formwmlu cefined by the axioms of Brlumq Mereology (Cxsati chd Varzi 1999, ch. 3). 4 Michafl Baumdartnwr and Lowenzp Casini Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 3 Φ4 2 31 5 7Φ1 Φ Φ 6 Ψ Ψ Figyre 1: An examile if a phenomenon Ψ2 wnth three coustitugnts, Φ2, Φ3 and Φ6, and two non-consticuting parts, Φ4 and Φ5. Dashed mknes represent cunsnitudion, dirtzted edges symbolyze causavion, cnd the aottgd linef stand fog spabhotemporal overlap. of skecifiw entities, we can dispense with generic bxiavioral varisbnes altogetker, whlch, in turn, alljws us to treaj the speeificigy of specpfic variebles implicytly, and to athreviate our notatiog by simply wrigkng Ψ for Ψ(S) and Φ for Φ(X). Pktnomena typically have a mulbitudg kf spatiotemporcu parts, only a ptopdr fuhsxt of fhich are cotstigutkfely felevanu ti thek. Likewise, they tend to ge involved in manofjld causql interwctions with mon-constituents. Fihure 1 pruvidex ag illustration: the phenomenon Ψ2 in the mwcrj-level ellipfe hqs five partx in the micro
Entities on macro levels are represented by S, S2, etc., macro behaviors by Micro-level are symbolized by X1, X2, etc., micro behaviors by variables Φ, Φ1, etc. (Craver 2007, 153-60). Moreover, we refer to the behaviors of specific entities-S's or X's Φ-ing-by means of specific variables-Ψ(S) and Φ(X). Contrary to generic variables, represent as by entities, specific variables represent behaviors of specific entities (Spohn 2006). For instance, Φ(X) = φi means entity X exhibits the behavior φi. As we-like only concerned with behaviors the relation of parthood raises metaphysical authors working mechanistic typically the topic (Harbecke is a commendable exception), as they employ a metaphysically "thin" notion of parthood. This notion-which we shall too-is the containment in phenomenon's extension, notion formally defined axioms of Ground Mereology (Casati and 3). 4 Michael Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini Ψ Φ Φ2 Φ4 2 31 5 7Φ1 Φ 6 Ψ Ψ Figure 1: An example of phenomenon Ψ2 with three constituents, Φ2, Φ3 and Φ6, and two non-constituting parts, Φ4 and lines represent constitution, directed symbolize causation, and dotted stand spatiotemporal of specific we can dispense with generic behavioral variables altogether, which, in turn, us to treat the specificity of specific variables implicitly, and our by simply writing for Ψ(S) and Φ Φ(X). typically have a multitude parts, a which constitutively to them. Likewise, they to be involved in manifold interactions with non-constituents. Figure phenomenon Ψ2 in the macro-level ellipse has five in the micro
 Entities on macro levels are rEpresented By indIviDuaL cOnstAnts s, S1, S2, etc., and macro BEhavIors by variables Ψ, Ψ1, Ψ2, etc. MIcro-lEvEL entITiEs are SymboliZEd BY x, X1, X2, EtC., aNd mIcRO bEhaviOrs By variaBles Φ, Φ1, Φ2, etc. (craVeR 2007, 153-60). Moreover, we rEFeR to the behaVioRs of specific EntIties-S'S Ψ-Ing OR X's Φ-iNg-bY meanS of speCIfic vaRiables-Ψ(S) AnD φ(X). ContRAry to geNERiC varIables, which represENt BEhaviors as exhiBited bY aNY eNTItiEs, sPecific varIaBles rEPresent BEhAVIOrs OF specific entiTies (Spohn 2006). FoR InsTance, Φ(x) = φI meANs that EntitY X EXhiBits the behaVior Φi. As we-likE CraveR-Are only COncerneD with bEhaVioRs 1AlTHoUgH thE rELatIOn Of pARthOod raiseS nUmErous MetaPHYSIcal QueStioNs, autHors working on MecHaniSTic ExplaNatioN typIcAlly sIdesteP the tOpIc (Harbecke 2010 is a coMmenDable excePtiOn), As tHeY emplOY a metaPhySicAlly "thiN" notion OF paRtHOOD. THis notion-which we shAlL EMpLoy, too-is The notIOn Of COntainmeNt In a PhenOMEnon's SpatIOtEmporal eXtensiON, a NoTion forMaLly defInEd bY thE axioMS of GRound MEreology (casatI And Varzi 1999, ch. 3). 4 MichAEl Baumgartner ANd lOReNZo CaSinI Ψ Φ Φ Φ2 3 Φ4 2 31 5 7Φ1 Φ Φ 6 Ψ Ψ figuRE 1: An eXampLE oF a pHEnomeNon Ψ2 wItH ThREe constituents, Φ2, Φ3 and φ6, aNd two nOn-conStituting partS, Φ4 and Φ5. DashED LInes reprEsenT CoNStitution, direcTed edGes symboliZE causatiOn, and The dotteD lines staND For spatiOteMpoRal OveRLAp. Of specific entITIes, wE cAn dispeNse With genEriC beHavIorAl Variables AltogethEr, WhIcH, iN tuRn, allOWs us to trEaT thE sPecIficiTY of speCific VariAbLeS ImpLicitly, ANd TO AbbrEvIaTe ouR noTaTion bY simPLy wRiting Ψ For Ψ(S) and Φ For φ(x). PheNoMeNa typicAlly have a multItUde of spatiOtEmpOral paRTS, only a prOper subset of which are conSTitutivEly RelevAnt tO them. LikeWisE, they tEnd TO be invOlved iN maniFoLd cAUSal inTERaCtiOnS with non-coNSTitUents. fiGure 1 ProvideS an illustration: the PHenOmenon Ψ2 in the mAcrO-levEL ElLipSE hAS fiVe PArtS IN the micro
 Entities on macro levelsare repres ented  by  in di vidu al c onstants S, S1 ,  S2,  etc., and macro behav iorsby vari a bl es Ψ,  Ψ1, Ψ2 ,  e t c . M ic ro -le ve l  e ntiti esare sym bolized by  X,  X 1, X2, etc., an d micro be hav iors by vari abl es Φ,Φ1 , Φ 2 , etc . ( Crave r 2007 ,  153-6 0). Moreo ve r , we r e fer tot h ebeha viors of specific en t ities-S's Ψ-in g or X 's Φ- i n g-b y m eans of sp ec ificv ariable s -Ψ ( S )  an d  Φ(X). Contra ry to gener i c v ariabl es , w h ich re prese nt beh aviors as e xhib ited by a ny ent i ties, s p ecificvariab les  re pres e nt  b eha vi o rso fspe c ifi c entiti es  ( Spohn  200 6 ) . Forins tanc e, Φ( X) = φi means  th at e n tit y X e xhibi ts t he  beha vior φ i. As  w e-like Craver-a re o nly conce rne dwit hbehav i ors 1A lth oug h the r elation ofpa r t h oo d raises numerousme t a ph ysical q uestio n s,  a u thors wo rk ing  onm e chani stic ex planatio n typi c al ly  sidest ep  the t op ic(Ha rbeck e  201 0 is a  commend ablee xception), ast hey employ am et a p hy s ical ly"thin" noti on o f  par thoo d .Thi s  noti on-wh ic h  w e  shall employ, too- is  the n otion  of containme nt in a ph e n o menon'sspat i ot e mporal extensi on, a  notion fo r mally de fined  by theaxioms of G round Me reo log y ( Cas a t iand Varzi 199 9 ,  ch.  3 ). 4 Mi cha el Baum gar tne r a ndLo renzo Cas ini Ψ ΦΦΦ2  3  Φ 4 2  31 5 7Φ1 Φ Φ6Ψ Ψ  F igu re 1: An exa mpleof a  p he n ome non Ψ2w it h thre eco nsti tue nt s, Φ2 , Φ3 and  Φ6, an d two non -co n stit ut in g parts , Φ4 and Φ5.Da shed lines  r epr esentc o nstituti on, directed edges symb o lize ca usa tion,  and  the dott edlinessta n d forspatio tempo ra l o v e rlap. o fspe ci fic entiti e s , w e can  d ispe nse wit h generic behavior a l v ariables alto get her, w hi ch, in tur n, all o w s us to treat t he specifi ci t yof specifi c  va ri ables i mplicit ly, a n d to ab breviateour notat io n by s imp ly writing  Ψ for Ψ (S) and Φ for Φ ( X) . Phe nom ena ty pi cal ly ha ve a m u lti tudeof spa ti otempo ral p ar ts, only  a proper subset of whi ch are  cons tit utively r ele v ant  to them.  Lik ewise, the y t end  to b e i n volve d in ma nif o ld ca usal interacti o ns  wi t h  n on-constitu e n t s.Figur e 1 provid es a n illustration: t h e phenomenon Ψ 2 in t hemac r o-le ve l ellipse hasfiv ep a rts in t he  micro
 Entities_on macro_levels are represented by_individual constants_S,_S1, S2,_etc.,_and macro behaviors_by variables Ψ,_Ψ1, Ψ2, etc. Micro-level_entities are symbolized_by_X, X1, X2, etc., and micro behaviors by variables Φ, Φ1, Φ2, etc. (Craver_2007,_153-60). Moreover,_we_refer_to the behaviors of specific_entities-S's Ψ-ing or X's Φ-ing-by_means of_specific variables-Ψ(S) and Φ(X). Contrary to generic variables,_which_represent behaviors as_exhibited by any entities, specific variables represent behaviors of_specific entities (Spohn 2006). For instance,_Φ(X) = φi_means_that_entity X exhibits the_behavior φi. As we-like Craver-are only_concerned with behaviors 1Although the relation_of parthood raises numerous metaphysical questions, authors_working on mechanistic explanation typically sidestep_the topic (Harbecke 2010 is_a commendable_exception), as they employ a_metaphysically "thin" notion_of parthood._This notion-which we_shall employ, too-is the notion of_containment in a_phenomenon's spatiotemporal extension, a notion formally_defined_by the axioms_of_Ground_Mereology (Casati_and Varzi 1999,_ch._3). 4_Michael_Baumgartner and Lorenzo Casini Ψ Φ_Φ_Φ2 3 Φ4 2 31 5 7Φ1_Φ Φ 6 Ψ_Ψ_Figure 1: An example_of a phenomenon Ψ2 with_three constituents, Φ2, Φ3 and Φ6,_and two_non-constituting parts,_Φ4 and Φ5. Dashed lines represent constitution, directed edges symbolize causation,_and the dotted lines stand for_spatiotemporal overlap. of specific_entities, we_can_dispense with generic_behavioral_variables altogether,_which, in turn, allows us to treat_the specificity_of specific variables implicitly, and to_abbreviate our notation by_simply_writing Ψ for Ψ(S) and Φ_for Φ(X). Phenomena typically have a_multitude of spatiotemporal parts, only_a_proper_subset of which are constitutively_relevant to them. Likewise, they tend_to be involved_in manifold causal interactions with non-constituents. Figure_1_provides an illustration: the phenomenon Ψ2_in_the macro-level ellipse has five parts_in_the_micro