Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0905.0806 · WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks

Indeterminism and Randomness Through Physics

Karl Svozil

Published Feb 1, 2011• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Despite provable unknowables in recursion theory, indeterminism and randomness in physics is confined to conventions, subjective beliefs and preliminary evidence. The history of the issue is very briefly reviewed, and answers to five questions raised by Hector Zenil are presented.
DOI
10.1142/9789814327756_0008

Related papers

Randomness in Physics: Five Questions, Some Answers

Karl Svozil

Despite provable unknowables in recursion theory, indeterminism and randomness in physics is confined to conventions, subjective beliefs and preliminary evidence. The history of the issue is very briefly reviewed, and answers to five questions raised by Zenil are presented.

•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations

Indeterminacy, Indeterminism, and Quantum Mechanics

Wesley C. Salmon

Abstract Uses a historical approach to explore the extent to which quantum theory mandates indeterminism. Drawing on important examples in the history of physics, it discusses explicitly the crucial distinction – often overlooked in the philosophical literature – between indeterminacy of physical quantities and causal indeterminism. It pursues at a more sophisticated level, issues raised in Ch. 2 concerning determinism and indeterminism in modern science. It concludes that quantum indeterminacy is an objective feature of the world, but that the jury is still out regarding quantum indeterminism.

•May 7, 1998•0 citations

Is “Physical Randomness” Just Indeterminism in Disguise?

Paul W. Humphreys

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.)

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1978•6 citations

Stability Implies Chance

Peter Paul Kirschenmann

Among the philosophical issues raised by quantum theory, the alleged indeterminism of quantum-physical phenomena, as opposed to the determinism of classical physics, has stood at the center of discussion. There are various other much-debated problems which are directly or indirectly related to this issue or, more generally, the probabilistic character of quantum theory. Less attention has been paid to the questions of the stability of atoms and the specificity of their properties, which quantum theory was primarily designed to resolve. I argue that the indeterminism of quantum theory becomes less intriguing and can be better comprehended when seen in the light of these questions - or briefly, that “stability implies indeterminism, or chance.” Chance, in this respect, appears as an objective and legitimate mode of succession of otherwise stable and discrete well-determined states of certain physical systems.

Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 1977•0 citations

Determinism and Indeterminism

Charlotte Werndl

This article focuses on three themes concerning determinism and indeterminism. The first is observational equivalence between deterministic and indeterministic models. The article discusses several results about observational equivalence and presents an argument on how to choose between deterministic and indeterministic models involving indirect evidence. The second is whether Newtonian physics is indeterministic. The article argues that the answer depends on what one takes Newtonian mechanics to be and highlights how contemporary debates on this issue differ from those in the nineteenth century. The third theme is how the method of arbitrary functions can be used to make sense of deterministic probabilities. The article discusses various ways of interpreting the initial probability distributions and argues that they are best understood as physical, biological, and other quantities characterizing the particular situation. The fact that the method of arbitrary functions deserves more attention than it has received so far is also emphasized.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Sep 10, 2015•17 citations

The $I_{3322}$ Bell inequality requires infinite dimensions

Andrea Coladangelo

The $I_{3322}$ inequality is one of the simplest bipartite Bell inequalities, with three possible questions and two possible answers per party. Yet, despite its simplicity, it has long been conjectured by Pál and Vértesi (Physical Review A, 2010) to possess the following quirk: no finite-dimensional quantum strategy can attain its maximal violation, but an infinite-dimensional strategy can. A Bell correlation, with five questions and three answers per party, that provably possesses the same property has since been discovered by Coladangelo and Stark (Nature Communications, 2020). However, proving that the same property holds for $I_{3322}$, which lives in the simplest Bell scenario in which such a phenomenon could occur, has remained elusive. Here, we provide a proof of this conjecture. An approximate proof, containing all the main ideas, was produced by GPT 5.5 Pro after various rounds of interaction. The presentation of this proof was revised substantially by the author for completeness, correctness, and clarity.

quant-pharXiv:2609.06038•Sep 8, 2026•0 citations
Abstract Uses a historical approach to explore the extent to which quantum theory mandates indeterminism. Drawing on important examples in the history of physics, it discusses explicitly the crucial distinction – often overlooked in the philosophical literature – between indeterminacy of physical quantities and causal indeterminism. It pursues at a more sophisticated level, issues raised in Ch. 2 concerning determinism and indeterminism in modern science. It concludes that quantum indeterminacy is an objective feature of the world, but that the jury is still out regarding quantum indeterminism.
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.)
Among the philosophical issues raised by quantum theory, the alleged indeterminism of quantum-physical phenomena, as opposed to the determinism of classical physics, has stood at the center of discussion. There are various other much-debated problems which are directly or indirectly related to this issue or, more generally, the probabilistic character of quantum theory. Less attention has been paid to the questions of the stability of atoms and the specificity of their properties, which quantum theory was primarily designed to resolve. I argue that the indeterminism of quantum theory becomes less intriguing and can be better comprehended when seen in the light of these questions - or briefly, that “stability implies indeterminism, or chance.” Chance, in this respect, appears as an objective and legitimate mode of succession of otherwise stable and discrete well-determined states of certain physical systems.
This article focuses on three themes concerning determinism and indeterminism. The first is observational equivalence between deterministic and indeterministic models. The article discusses several results about observational equivalence and presents an argument on how to choose between deterministic and indeterministic models involving indirect evidence. The second is whether Newtonian physics is indeterministic. The article argues that the answer depends on what one takes Newtonian mechanics to be and highlights how contemporary debates on this issue differ from those in the nineteenth century. The third theme is how the method of arbitrary functions can be used to make sense of deterministic probabilities. The article discusses various ways of interpreting the initial probability distributions and argues that they are best understood as physical, biological, and other quantities characterizing the particular situation. The fact that the method of arbitrary functions deserves more attention than it has received so far is also emphasized.
The I3322I_{3322}I3322​ Bell inequality requires infinite dimensions
The I3322I_{3322}I3322​ inequality is one of the simplest bipartite Bell inequalities, with three possible questions and two possible answers per party. Yet, despite its simplicity, it has long been conjectured by Pál and Vértesi (Physical Review A, 2010) to possess the following quirk: no finite-dimensional quantum strategy can attain its maximal violation, but an infinite-dimensional strategy can. A Bell correlation, with five questions and three answers per party, that provably possesses the same property has since been discovered by Coladangelo and Stark (Nature Communications, 2020). However, proving that the same property holds for I3322I_{3322}I3322​, which lives in the simplest Bell scenario in which such a phenomenon could occur, has remained elusive. Here, we provide a proof of this conjecture. An approximate proof, containing all the main ideas, was produced by GPT 5.5 Pro after various rounds of interaction. The presentation of this proof was revised substantially by the author for completeness, correctness, and clarity.