Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T21:47:56.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Forms of Determinism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Peter Kirschenmann
Peter Kirschenmann*
Affiliation:
Clarkson College of Technology Potsdam, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philosophers are continually challenged to comprehend chance phenomena and probabilistic relationships. Those cases are especially intriguing in which we speak of chance or probability but can hardly attribute this manner of speaking to our being partially or totally ignorant of the situations in question. Those cases, then, can be taken to possess chance as an objective feature. In its intent, this paper is restricted to a discussion of such cases. Among objective chance relationships there is one kind which seems especially incomprehensible. These are stochastic relationships, i.e., chance relationships between consecutive states of physical systems.

Type
Contributed Papers: Session III
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1974 , 1974 , pp. 393 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bub, J.: 1973, ‘On the Completeness of Quantum Mechanics’M , in C. A., Hooker (ed.), Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
Bunge, M.: 1951, ‘What is Chance?’, Science and Society 15, 209-231.Google Scholar
Bunge, M.: 1967, Foundations of Physics, Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M: 1970, ‘Problems Concerning Intertheory Relations’, in P. Weingartner and G. Zecha (eds.), Induction, Physics, and Ethics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1970, pp. 285-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahn, S. M.: 1967, ‘Chance’, in P., Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, New York, 1967, Vol. 2, pp. 73-75.Google Scholar
Feller, W.: 1966, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Vol. II, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Feller, W.: 1968, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Vol. I, 3rd ed., John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Fraassen, B. C. van: 1972, ‘A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science’, in R. G., Colodny (ed.), Paradigm and Paradoxes, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972, pp. 303-366.Google Scholar
Goodman, N.: 1966, The Structure of Appearance, 2nd ed., Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D.: 1964, The Language of Nature, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, W.: 1958, Physics and Philosophy, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
Hölling, J.: 1971, ‘Zur Kategorialanalyse des physikalischen Feldbegriffs’, in J. Hölling, Realismus und Relativitat, W. Fink, Munich, 1971, pp. 126-139. First published in Philosophia Naturalis 10 (1968), 343-356.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A.: 1973, ‘Metaphysics and Modern Physics’, in C. A., Hooker (ed.), Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973, pp. 174-304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschenmann, P.: 1972, ‘Concepts of Randomness’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 1, 395-414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landé, A.: 1973, Quantum Mechanics in a New Key, Exposition Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mackey, G. W.: 1963, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, W. A. Benjamin, New York.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H.: 1971, The Matter of Chance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nagel, E.: 1961, The Structure of Science, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, J. von: 1955, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Newton, I.: 1952, Opticks, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H.: 1912, Calcul des probabilités, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. U.: 1965, Stochastic Processes, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, G.: 1975, “The Similarities Between Space and Time' , Mind 84, 161-176.10.1093/mind/LXXXIV.1.161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P.: 1957, Introduction to Logic, D. van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Taylor, R.: 1955, ‘Spatial and Temporal Analogies and the Concept of Identity', Journal of Philosophy 52, 599-612. Repr. in J. J. C. Smart (ed.), Problems of Space and Time, Macmillan, New York, 1964, pp. 381-396.Google Scholar
Taylor, R.: 1963, Metaphysics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Watanabe, S.: 1966, ‘Time and the Probabilistic View of the World', in J. T. Fraser(ed-), The Voices of Time, G. Braziller, New York, 1966, pp. 527, 563. “Google Scholar
Weisskopf, V. F.: 1972, Physics in the Twentieth Century, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Wigner, E. P.: 1973, ‘Epistemological Perspective on Quantum Theory', in C. A., Hooker led.), Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973, 369-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar