Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:27:13.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is “Physical Randomness” Just Indeterminism in Disguise?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Paul W. Humphreys
Paul W. Humphreys*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The topic of this session is “physical randomness”. It might be doubted whether such a subject exists, for definitions of randomness have hitherto almost all been mathematical in nature. The only exceptions of which I am aware are the preceding paper by Benioff and a paper by Wesley Salmon. These attempts to inject some empirical content into randomness are highly desirable. But anyone attempting to formulate a physically based definition of randomness should at some point make clear what the connection is (if any) with a more traditional notion of disorder - that of indeterminism. Repeated reference to quantum mechanical examples whenever physical randomness is discussed indicates that a primary motivation for considering physical randomness to be important is because of the current belief that data sequences associated with quantum mechanical experiments are irreducibly random. (As an indication of this, in any situation in which physical randomness is discussed, translate the remarks about quantum phenomena into remarks about coin tossing, and they will lose much of their interest.)

Type
Part III. Physical Randomness
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 98 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association

Footnotes

1

The research for this paper was partially supported by NSF grant # S0C77-08837. I should also like to thank Leonard Monk and Zeno Swijtink for helpful discussions.

References

[1] Benioff, Paul. “On the Correct Definition of Randomness.” In PSA 1978, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1981. Pages 63–78.Google Scholar
[2] Humphreys, Paul W. “Randomness, Independence, and Hypotheses.” Synthese 36(1977): 415–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Kreisel, G. “A Notion of Mechanistic Theory.” Synthese 29(1974): 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Mackie, J.L. The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
[5] Montague, Richard. “Deterministic Theories.” In Decisions, Values, and Groups, Volume 2. Edited by Willner, D. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1962. Pages 325–370. (As reprinted in Formal Philosophy, (ed.) R. Thomason. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Pages 303-359.)Google Scholar
[6] Popper, Karl R. “The Propensity Interpretation of the Calculus of Probability and the Quantum Theory.” In Observation and Interpretation. Edited by Körner, S. London: Butterworth, 1957. Pages 65–70.Google Scholar
[7] Russell, Bertrand. “On the Notion of Cause.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 13(1912-1913): 1–26. (As reprinted in Mysticism and Logic. London: Allen & Unwin, 1917. Pages 180–208.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Salmon, Wesley C. “Objectively Homogeneous Reference Classes.” Synthese 36(1977): 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Salmon, Wesley C. “Statistical Explanation.” In Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971. Pages 29–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Solovay, Robert M. “A Model of Set Theory in Which Every Set of Reals is Lebesgue Measurable.” Annals of Mathematics 92(1970): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Ville, Jean. Étude Critique de la Notion de Collectif. Paris: Gauthier - Villars, 1939.Google Scholar