On the observational equivalence of continuous-time deterministic and indeterministic descriptions

Original paper in Philosophy of Physics

Abstract

This paper presents and philosophically assesses three types of results on the observational equivalence of continuous-time measure-theoretic deterministic and indeterministic descriptions. The first results establish observational equivalence to abstract mathematical descriptions. The second results are stronger because they show observational equivalence between deterministic and indeterministic descriptions found in science. Here I also discuss Kolmogorov’s contribution. For the third results I introduce two new meanings of ‘observational equivalence at every observation level’. Then I show the even stronger result of observational equivalence at every (and not just some) observation level between deterministic and indeterministic descriptions found in science. These results imply the following. Suppose one wants to find out whether a phenomenon is best modeled as deterministic or indeterministic. Then one cannot appeal to differences in the probability distributions of deterministic and indeterministic descriptions found in science to argue that one of the descriptions is preferable because there is no such difference. Finally, I criticise the extant claims of philosophers and mathematicians on observational equivalence.

Keywords

Observational equivalence Determinism Indeterminism Continuous-time descriptions Classical physics Stochastic processes Ergodic theory 

References

  1. Berkovitz, J., Frigg, R., & Kronz, F. (2006). The Ergodic Hierarchy, Randomness and Hamiltonian Chaos. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37, 661–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butterfield, J. (2005). Determinism and indeterminism. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Online.Google Scholar
  3. Cornfeld, I. P., Fomin, S. V., & Sinai, Y. G. (1982). Ergodic theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Doob, J. L. (1953). Stochastic processes. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Eagle, A. (2005). Randomness is unpredictability. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 749–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eckmann, J.-P., & Ruelle, D. (1985). Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors. Reviews of Modern Physics, 57, 617–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, J., & Smorodinksy, M. (1971). Bernoulli flows with infinite entropy. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 42, 381–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Halmos, P. (1944). In general a measure-preserving transformation is mixing. The Annals of Mathematics, 45, 786–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halmos, P. (1949). Measurable transformations. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 55, 1015–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hopf, E. (1932). Proof of Gibbs’ hypothesis on the tendency toward statistical equilibrium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 18, 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janssen, J., & Limnios, N. (1999). Semi-Markov models and applications. Dotrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Krieger, W. (1970). On entropy and generators of measure-preserving transformations. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 149, 453–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lorenz, E. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luzzatto, S., Melbourne, I., & Paccaut, F. (2005). The Lorenz attractor is mixing. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 260, 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ornstein, D. (1970). Imbedding Bernoulli shifts in flows. In A. Dold, & B. Eckmann (Eds.), Contributions to Ergodic theory and probability, proceedings of the first Midwestern conference on Ergodic theory (pp. 178–218). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Ornstein, D. (1974). Ergodic theory, randomness, and dynamical systems. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ornstein, D., & Galavotti, G. (1974). Billiards and Bernoulli schemes. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 38, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ornstein, D., & Weiss, B. (1991). Statistical properties of chaotic systems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 24, 11–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Park, K. (1982). A special family of Ergodic flows and their \(\bar{d}\)-limits. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 42, 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petersen, K. (1983). Ergodic theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Radunskaya, A. (1992). Statistical properties of deterministic Bernoulli flows. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford: University of Stanford.Google Scholar
  22. Simányi, N. (2003). Proof of the Boltzmann-Sinai Ergodic hypothesis for typical hard disk systems. Inventiones Mathematicae, 154, 123–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sinai, Y. G. (1989). Kolmogorov’s work on Ergodic theory. The Annals of Probability, 17, 833–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strogatz, S. H. (1994). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos, with applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. New York: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Suppes, P. (1999). The noninvariance of deterministic causal models. Synthese, 121, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suppes, P., & de Barros, A. (1996). Photons, billiards and chaos. In P. Weingartner, & G. Schurz (Eds.), Law and prediction in the light of chaos research (pp. 189–207). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uffink, J. (2007). Compendium to the foundations of classical statistical physics. In J. Butterfield, & J. Earman (Eds.), Philosophy of physics (handbooks of the philosophy of science B) (pp. 923–1074). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  28. Werndl, C. (2009a). Are deterministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions observationally equivalent? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 232–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Werndl, C. (2009b). What are the new implications of chaos for unpredictability? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Werndl, C. (2011). On choosing between deterministic and indeterministic descriptions: underdetermination and indirect evidence (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  31. Winnie, J. (1998). Deterministic chaos and the nature of chance. In J. Earman, & J. Norton (Eds.), The cosmos of science—essays of exploration (pp. 299–324). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations