Some Points About Indeterminacy

Some Points About Indeterminacy
By: Doug McManaman

Doesn't the uncertainty principle show that nature is indeterminate?

The uncertainty relation does not represent a real disorder in nature, but merely a subjective or logical indetermination, that is to say, an inaccuracy in measurement.

A norm or standard must be chosen in light of which the indeterminism is said to exist. In other words, the very notion of "indeterminacy" can only be understood against the background of what is determinate. If something is said to be disordered, there must be an order against the background of which we can say that this something is disordered. Now this norm in light of which we understand disorder is either a subjective norm or an objective norm. If the standard is subjective, then the indeterminism which it defines is subjective (and we have no business contending that the indeterminism is objective and real).

But if the norm in light of which we understand disorder is objective, then all is not indeterminate in the world, At least this norm or standard, with respect to which disorder is defined, is determinate and law-abiding.

In the area of quantum physics, the definition of chance is grounded in a prior definition of order, and this definition or understanding of order is real or merely ideal depending on whether the norm of order is real or ideal.[1]

Doesn't quantum mechanics show that the world is governed by "the random", that is, by chance?

Randomness is not chance. A statistical whole composed of elements that are apparently disordered is in reality an ordered whole. Now such a whole is nothing but the sum of its parts, and so if the whole is ordered, the parts must in turn be ordered, only in ways that we are unable to follow at this point.

It follows that if the units that form a collection were mere chaos, following the lawlessness of chance, then it would be impossible to have an order like the law of averages or radioactive half life or thermal equilibrium in the whole.[2]

The parts are clearly law abiding if there is law in the aggregate. And so order does not depend for its existence on our ability to measure it.

Strictly speaking, order has nothing to do with quantity. Order is detectable in the tendencies of a thing's nature towards its proper end. If the small particles, which some believe to be governed by chance (which is not to be governed at all), had no tendencies of their own towards ordered ends, then they would be entirely indeterminate. They'd be unable to act; for everything that acts, acts for an end. Not only would they be unable to act if they were wholly indeterminate, but they'd be unable to exist. For existence is an act.

Chance, in the physical and real sense of the word, can only be defined and understood in light of final causality. Chance involves motion. Chance is an aberration from a motion's natural destiny. Chance is, in this light, something quite different from randomness.[3]

So if the random collection were to be set in motion, then would it be subject to chance. Its random character might be disturbed by an extrinsic causal series, and in this case the disturbance of the random order would be a chance event.

Notes

¹V. E. Smith, Philosophical Physics, 275-276.

²Ibid., 276.

³"A random distribution of units forming a collection means that the whole is homogeneous and is a form of order where the parts are scattered equally throughout the aggregate. Such an aggregate is mathematically treated. The order which it reflects is defined by reference to a mathematical system, and mathematics, unconcerned with final causes, does not deal with chance" Ibid., 275.