Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 295–312 | Cite as

Evidence for the Deterministic or the Indeterministic Description? A Critique of the Literature About Classical Dynamical Systems

Article

Abstract

It can be shown that certain kinds of classical deterministic and indeterministic descriptions are observationally equivalent. Then the question arises: which description is preferable relative to evidence? This paper looks at the main argument in the literature for the deterministic description by Winnie (The cosmos of science—essays of exploration. Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, pp 299–324, 1998). It is shown that this argument yields the desired conclusion relative to in principle possible observations where there are no limits, in principle, on observational accuracy. Yet relative to the currently possible observations (of relevance in practice), relative to the actual observations, or relative to in principle observations where there are limits, in principle, on observational accuracy the argument fails. Then Winnie’s analogy between his argument for the deterministic description and his argument against the prevalence of Bernoulli randomness in deterministic descriptions is considered. It is argued that while the arguments are indeed analogous, it is also important to see they are disanalogous in another sense.

Keywords

Determinism Indeterminism Observational equivalence Randomness Underdetermination 

References

  1. Benedicks, M., & Young, L.-S. (1993). Sinai-Bowen-Ruelle-measures for certain Hénon maps. Inventiones Mathematicae, 112, 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkovitz, J., Frigg, R., & Kronz, F. (2006). The ergodic hierarchy, randomness and chaos. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37, 661–691.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, R. (2008). Chaos. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition). URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/chaos/.
  4. Chernov, N., & Markarian, R. (2006). Chaotic billiards. Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  5. Frigg, R. (2008). A field guide to recent work on the foundations of statistical mechanics. In D. Rickles (Ed.) The Ashgate companion to contemporary philosophy of physics (pp. 99–196). London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Hénon, M. (1976). A two dimensional mapping with a strange attractor. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 50, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Judd, K., & Smith, L. A. (2001). Indistinguishable states I: Perfect model scenario. Physica D, 151, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Judd, K., & Smith, L. A. (2004). Indistinguishable states II: Imperfect model scenario. Physica D, 196, 224–242.Google Scholar
  9. Laudan, L. (1995). Damn the consequences! Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 69, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Laudan, L., & Leplin, J. (1991). Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy, 88, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Okasha, S. (1998). Laudan and Leplin on empirical equivalence. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48, 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Okasha, S. (2002). Underdetermination, holism and the theory/data distinction. The Philosophical Quarterly, 208, 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Petersen, K. (1983). Ergodic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pitowsky, I. (1996). Laplace’s demon consults an oracle: The computational complexity of predictions. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simányi, N. (1999). Ergodicity of hard spheres in a box. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 19, 741–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simányi, N. (2003). Proof of the Boltzmann-Sinai ergodic hypothesis for typical hard disk systems. Inventiones Mathematicae, 154, 123–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Suppes, P. (1993). The transcendental character of determinism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 18, 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 190–201). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Werndl, C. (2009a). Are deterministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions observationally equivalent? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 232–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Werndl, C. (2009c). Philosophical aspects of chaos: Definitions in mathematics, unpredictability and the observational equivalence of deterministic and indeterministic descriptions. Ph.D. thesis. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Werndl, C. (2011). On the observational equivalence of continuous-time deterministic and indeterministic descriptions. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1, 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winnie, J. (1998). Deterministic chaos and the nature of chance. In Earman J., & Norton J. (Eds.). The cosmos of science—essays of exploration (pp. 299–324). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations