Discussion between Francis, Mario, and John (at the PCP listserver)
shows clearly (at least to me) that the problem of deteminism/non-determinism
can not be resolved within positivistic methodology.
Non-deteminists say that our models are abstractions, that do not
exactly fit to reality. Thus, increasing precision in estimation of
model parameters does not make any sense.
Determinists answer that we can improve our models so that they
will fit better to reality and then parameters can be estimated with
a higher accuracy and still remain meaningful. In other words, for
each level of accuracy there should be a model for which this
accuracy is meaninful. There is an iterative process in which we can
improve both models and accuracy of their parameters.
Non-determinists have an additional argument:
A system can be described only by multiple complimentary models.
Each model has its limits, but if we combine several models we can
describe the system completely. For example, in quantum mechanics,
an electron can be described as a particle and as a wave.
Determinists reply: but there is no evidence that several "complimentary"
models cannot be combined into a new unified model. For example,
the wave function in QM describes both particles and electromagnetic
waves. The dynamics of the wave function is deterministic. Instead of
argueing about limitations of earlier models (particles and waves), let
us go to the next level where determinism is restored.
The goal of positivistic methodology is to increase the realism of
models. Best models have more details and their parameters are evaluated
with higher accuracy. Hence, determinism is the best modeling approach.
Francis and John try to confront determinism without abandoning
positivistic urge for realism. They say: in REALITY things are not
deterministic. This is wrong because it is our models and our language
that make the world deterministic or not.
The problem of determinism can be resolved only within pragmatism
(developed by Peirce, James, and Dewey). Pragmatists say: there is
an optimal level of realism for solving each practical problem. If
I need to talk with my friend, I don't need to know every molecule
in his body. I see no problem in the belief that theoretically a human
body can be described deterministically. It is not wrong, it is simply
stupid because it does not help to solve any practical problem.
I know, pragmatism is hard to swallow, but it is worth trying!
I believe it is the only philosophy that solves the problem of
determinism and freedom.
-Alexei
-------------------------------------------------
Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html