data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5aabc/5aabc6f466bb9c54aa968843f1cf39fc555c2fd0" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/72dfa/72dfa8495e3207190cf8bebc9db501be29c68aba" alt=""
Consider now the inverse problem. Suppose, rather than knowing these equations, we are observing the table and trying to determine the mathematics which governs the movement of the balls. How might we do this? Since our observations are necessarily of finite accuracy, we might partition the free portion of the table into a finite grid. At various points in time we make observations and record which squares of the grid in which a ball is present. The size of the squares in the grid represents the accuracy of our measurements.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/22649/22649e60baacb2c3cd2b1e2dced8fa55eb0c5f31" alt=""
Thus, not only is it the case that we are in principle unable to distinguish between a deterministic and an indeterministic universe; but also, even if the universe is deterministic, and we know its initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, we will still, in principle, be unable to predict its behavior.
[images from Suppes, Patrick (1999) "The Noninvariance of Deterministic Causal Models"]
No comments:
Post a Comment