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

Observational Equivalence of Deterministic and Indeterministic Descriptions and the Role of Different Observations

Werndl, Charlotte

Published Jan 1, 2011• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Recently some results have been presented which show that certain kinds of deterministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions are observationally equivalent (Werndl 2009a, 2010). This paper focuses on some philosophical questions prompted by these results. More specifically, first, I will discuss the philosophical comments made by mathematicians about observational equivalence, in particular Ornstein and Weiss (1991). Their comments are vague, and I will argue that, according to a reasonable interpretation, they are misguided. Second, the results on observational equivalence raise the question of whether the deterministic or indeterministic description is preferable relative to all evidence. If none of them is preferable, there is underdetermination. I will criticize Winnie's (1998) argument that, by appealing to different observations, one finds that the deterministic description is preferable. In particular, I will clarify a confusion in this argument. Furthermore, I will argue that if the concern is a strong kind of underdetermination, the argument delivers the desired conclusion but this conclusion is trivial; and for other kinds of underdetermination of interest the argument fails.

Related papers

Observational Equivalence of Deterministic and Indeterministic Descriptions and the Role of Different Observations

Werndl, Charlotte

Recently some results have been presented which show that certain kinds of deterministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions are observationally equivalent (Werndl 2009a, 2010). This paper focuses on some philosophical questions prompted by these results. More specifically, first, I will discuss the philosophical comments made by mathematicians about observational equivalence, in particular Ornstein and Weiss (1991). Their comments are vague, and I will argue that, according to a reasonable interpretation, they are misguided. Second, the results on observational equivalence raise the question of whether the deterministic or indeterministic description is preferable relative to all evidence. If none of them is preferable, there is underdetermination. I will criticize Winnie's (1998) argument that, by appealing to different observations, one finds that the deterministic description is preferable. In particular, I will clarify a confusion in this argument. Furthermore, I will argue that if the concern is a strong kind of underdetermination, the argument delivers the desired conclusion but this conclusion is trivial; and for other kinds of underdetermination of interest the argument fails.

•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

Observational Equivalence of Deterministic and Indeterministic Descriptions and the Role of Different Observations

Charlotte Werndl

Recently some results have been presented which show that certain kinds of de-terministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions are observationally equivalent (Werndl 2009a, Werndl 2011). These results prompt interesting phi-losophical questions, such as what exactly they show or whether the deterministic

•Oct 31, 2015•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

Observational equivalence of deterministic and indeterministic descriptions and the role of different observations

Werndl, Charlotte

•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations

Determinism and Indeterminism as Model Artefacts: Toward a Model-Invariant Ontology of Physics

David Nolland

This paper argues that, where deterministic and indeterministic formulations agree on empirically corroborated structure while differing in their completion of structure that remains empirically underdetermined, features invariant across these formulations warrant ontological commitment, whereas any warrant attaching to features that vary across them is categorically more provisional. Because deterministic and indeterministic completions are always formally available, while additional grounds for preferring particular completions are contingent and defeasible, empirically corroborated structure alone cannot determine whether reality is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic, or whether that very distinction belongs only to specific representations of it. On this basis, I advance a model-invariance criterion according to which structural features are candidates for realist commitment insofar as they are empirically corroborated within a regime and preserved across the admissible formulations of that structure. I show how such invariant content can be characterised in mathematically intelligible ways, yielding a fallibilist form of structural realism grounded in model-invariance rather than in the specific form of any given mathematical representation. Features such as conservation relations, invariant measures, symmetries, and probability or correlation structures over observable histories may satisfy this criterion. By contrast, the localisation of modal selection---whether in fine-grained initial conditions, stochastic outcomes, or state-update and collapse mechanisms---may vary across empirically admissible formulations and therefore constitute a gauge-like representational freedom. This framework offers a realist ontology for modern physics that combines empirical openness with resistance to metaphysical overreach.

physics.hist-phCross-listedarXiv:2512.22540•Dec 30, 2025•0 citations

Observational Equivalence of Deterministic and Indeterministic Descriptions and the Role of Different Observations

Charlotte Werndl

Springer eBooks•Sep 26, 2011•2 citations
Recently some results have been presented which show that certain kinds of deterministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions are observationally equivalent (Werndl 2009a, 2010). This paper focuses on some philosophical questions prompted by these results. More specifically, first, I will discuss the philosophical comments made by mathematicians about observational equivalence, in particular Ornstein and Weiss (1991). Their comments are vague, and I will argue that, according to a reasonable interpretation, they are misguided. Second, the results on observational equivalence raise the question of whether the deterministic or indeterministic description is preferable relative to all evidence. If none of them is preferable, there is underdetermination. I will criticize Winnie's (1998) argument that, by appealing to different observations, one finds that the deterministic description is preferable. In particular, I will clarify a confusion in this argument. Furthermore, I will argue that if the concern is a strong kind of underdetermination, the argument delivers the desired conclusion but this conclusion is trivial; and for other kinds of underdetermination of interest the argument fails.
Recently some results have been presented which show that certain kinds of deterministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions are observationally equivalent (Werndl 2009a, 2010). This paper focuses on some philosophical questions prompted by these results. More specifically, first, I will discuss the philosophical comments made by mathematicians about observational equivalence, in particular Ornstein and Weiss (1991). Their comments are vague, and I will argue that, according to a reasonable interpretation, they are misguided. Second, the results on observational equivalence raise the question of whether the deterministic or indeterministic description is preferable relative to all evidence. If none of them is preferable, there is underdetermination. I will criticize Winnie's (1998) argument that, by appealing to different observations, one finds that the deterministic description is preferable. In particular, I will clarify a confusion in this argument. Furthermore, I will argue that if the concern is a strong kind of underdetermination, the argument delivers the desired conclusion but this conclusion is trivial; and for other kinds of underdetermination of interest the argument fails.
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.
This paper argues that, where deterministic and indeterministic formulations agree on empirically corroborated structure while differing in their completion of structure that remains empirically underdetermined, features invariant across these formulations warrant ontological commitment, whereas any warrant attaching to features that vary across them is categorically more provisional. Because deterministic and indeterministic completions are always formally available, while additional grounds for preferring particular completions are contingent and defeasible, empirically corroborated structure alone cannot determine whether reality is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic, or whether that very distinction belongs only to specific representations of it. On this basis, I advance a model-invariance criterion according to which structural features are candidates for realist commitment insofar as they are empirically corroborated within a regime and preserved across the admissible formulations of that structure. I show how such invariant content can be characterised in mathematically intelligible ways, yielding a fallibilist form of structural realism grounded in model-invariance rather than in the specific form of any given mathematical representation. Features such as conservation relations, invariant measures, symmetries, and probability or correlation structures over observable histories may satisfy this criterion. By contrast, the localisation of modal selection---whether in fine-grained initial conditions, stochastic outcomes, or state-update and collapse mechanisms---may vary across empirically admissible formulations and therefore constitute a gauge-like representational freedom. This framework offers a realist ontology for modern physics that combines empirical openness with resistance to metaphysical overreach.