skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Determinism

Published:29 May 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article is about deterministic models, what they are, why they are useful, and what their limitations are. First, the article emphasizes that determinism is a property of models, not of physical systems. Whether a model is deterministic or not depends on how one defines the inputs and behavior of the model. To define behavior, one has to define an observer. The article compares and contrasts two classes of ways to define an observer, one based on the notion of “state” and another that more flexibly defines the observables. The notion of “state” is shown to be problematic and lead to nondeterminism that is avoided when the observables are defined differently. The article examines determinism in models of the physical world. In what may surprise many readers, it shows that Newtonian physics admits nondeterminism and that quantum physics may be interpreted as a deterministic model. Moreover, it shows that both relativity and quantum physics undermine the notion of “state” and therefore require more flexible ways of defining observables. Finally, the article reviews results showing that sufficiently rich sets of deterministic models are incomplete. Specifically, nondeterminism is inescapable in any system of models rich enough to encompass Newton’s laws.

References

  1. Joe Armstrong, Robert Virding, Claes Wikström, and Mike Williams. 1996. Concurrent Programming in Erlang (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. AUTOSAR. 2019. Explanation of adaptive platform design. AUTOSAR AP Release 19-11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Adam Becker. 2018. What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. John Stewart Bell. 1964. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physica 1, 3 (1964), 195–200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Albert Benveniste and Gérard Berry. 1991. The synchronous approach to reactive and real-time systems. Proceedings of IEEE 79, 9 (1991), 1270–1282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. George E. P. Box and Norman R. Draper. 1987. Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Janette Cardoso, Edward A. Lee, Jie Liu, and Haiyang Zheng. 2014. Continuous-time models. In System Design, Modeling, and Simulation using Ptolemy II, Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ed.). Ptolemy.org, Berkeley, CA. http://ptolemy.org/books/Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alonzo Church. 1932. A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics 32, 2 (April 1932), 346–366. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1968337.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Alonzo Church and J. B. Rosser. 1936. Some properties of conversion. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 39, 3 (May 1936), 472–482. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/1989762Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Bridget Copley and Fabienne Martin. 2014. Causation in Grammatical Structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. James C. Corbett, Jeffrey Dean, Michael Epstein, Andrew Fikes, Christopher Frost, J. J. Furman, Sanjay Ghemawat, Andrey Gubarev, Christopher Heiser, Peter Hochschild, Wilson Hsieh, Sebastian Kanthak, Eugene Kogan, Hongyi Li, Alexander Lloyd, Sergey Melnik, David Mwaura, David Nagle, Sean Quinlan, Rajesh Rao, Lindsay Rolig, Yasushi Saito, Michal Szymaniak, Christopher Taylor, Ruth Wang, and Dale Woodford. 2012. Spanner: Google’s globally-distributed database. In USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI’12). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2491245Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Patrick Cousot and Radhia Cousot. 1977. Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’77). ACM Press, 238–252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Fabio Cremona, Marten Lohstroh, David Broman, Edward A. Lee, Michael Masin, and Stavros Tripakis. 2017. Hybrid co-simulation: It’s about time. Software and Systems Modeling 18 (November 2017), 1655–1679. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0633-6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Abhishek Dhar. 1993. Nonuniqueness in the solutions of Newton’s equation of motion. American Journal of Physics 61, 1 (1993), 58–61. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17411Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Susanne Ditlevsen and Adeline Samson. 2013. Introduction to stochastic models in biology. In Stochastic Biomathematical Models: With Applications to Neuronal Modeling, Mostafa Bachar, Jerry Batzel, and Susanne Ditlevsen (Eds.). Springer, 3–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32157-3_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. John Earman. 1986. A Primer on Determinism. The University of Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32. D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Stephen Edwards. 2018. On Determinism. Vol. LNCS 10760. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 240–253. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95246-8_14Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Stephen Edwards and John Hui. 2020. The sparse synchronous model. In 2020 Forum for Specification and Design Languages (FDL’20). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Stephen A. Edwards and Edward A. Lee. 2003. The semantics and execution of a synchronous block-diagram language. Science of Computer Programming 48, 1 (2003), 21–42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Samuel Craig Fletcher. 2012. What counts as a Newtonian system? The view from Norton’s dome. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (October 2012), 275–297. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0040-8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Richard Gale. 1966. McTaggart’s analysis of time. American Philosophical Quarterly 3, 2 (1966), 145–152. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009201.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Stephen Hawking. 2002. Gödel and the end of the universe. Stephen Hawking Public Lectures. http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Carl Hoefer. 2016. Causal determinism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Spring 2016 Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/determinism-causal/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. John Hopcroft and Jeffrey Ullman. 1979. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Urs Hunkeler, Hong Linh Truong, and Andy Stanford-Clark. 2008. MQTT-S—A publish/subscribe protocol for wireless sensor networks. In 3rd International Conference on Communication Systems Software and Middleware and Workshops (COMSWARE’08). IEEE, 791–798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Gilles Kahn. 1974. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In Proceedings of the IFIP Congress 74. North-Holland Publishing Co., 471–475.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilles Kahn and D. B. MacQueen. 1977. Coroutines and networks of parallel processes. In Information Processing, B. Gilchrist (Ed.). North-Holland Publishing Co., 993–998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Victor Khomenko, Mark Schaefer, and Walter Vogler. 2008. Output-determinacy and asynchronous circuit synthesis. Fundamenta Informaticae 88, 4 (2008), 541–579.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. David J. Kinniment. 2007. Synchronization and Arbitration in Digital Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Pierre-Simon Laplace. 1901. A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Translated from the 6th French edition by F. W. Truscott and F. L. Emory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Edward A. Lee. 1999. Modeling concurrent real-time processes using discrete events. Annals of Software Engineering 7 (1999), 25–45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Edward A. Lee. 2006. Concurrent semantics without the notions of state or state transitions. In International Conference on Formal Modelling and Analysis of Timed Systems (FORMATS’06), E. Asarin and P. Bouyer (Eds.), Vol. LNCS 4202. Springer-Verlag. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/11867340_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Edward A. Lee. 2006. The problem with threads. Computer 39, 5 (2006), 33–42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Edward A. Lee. 2008. Cyber physical systems: Design challenges. In International Symposium on Object/Component/Service-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC’08). IEEE, 363–369. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ISORC.2008.25Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Edward A. Lee. 2009. Computing needs time. Communications of the ACM 52, 5 (2009), 70–79. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1506409.1506426Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Edward A. Lee. 2014. Constructive models of discrete and continuous physical phenomena. IEEE Access 2, 1 (2014), 1–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2345759Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Edward A. Lee. 2016. Fundamental limits of cyber-physical systems modeling. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems 1, 1 (2016), 26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2912149Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Edward Ashford Lee. 2017. Plato and the Nerd — The Creative Partnership of Humans and Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Edward Ashford Lee. 2020. The Coevolution: The Entwined Futures of Humans and Machines. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Edward A. Lee and Eleftherios Matsikoudis. 2009. The semantics of dataflow with firing. In From Semantics to Computer Science: Essays in Memory of Gilles Kahn, Gérard Huet, Gordon Plotkin, Jean-Jacques Lévy, and Yves Bertot (Eds.). Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. E. A. Lee and T. M. Parks. 1995. Dataflow process networks. Proceedings of IEEE 83, 5 (1995), 773–801. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/5.381846Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Edward A. Lee and Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 1998. A framework for comparing models of computation. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Circuits and Systems 17, 12 (1998), 1217–1229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Edward A. Lee and Marjan Sirjani. 2018. What good are models? In Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS’18), Vol. LNCS 11222. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Edward A. Lee and Haiyang Zheng. 2007. Leveraging synchronous language principles for heterogeneous modeling and design of embedded systems. In EMSOFT. ACM, 114–123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Edwin R. Lewis and Ronald J. MacGregor. 2006. On indeterminism, chaos, and small number particle systems in the brain. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 5, 2 (2006), 223–247. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/∼lewis/LewisMacGregor.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Marten Lohstroh, Íñigo Íncer Romeo, Andrés Goens, Patricia Derler, Jeronimo Castrillon, Edward A. Lee, and Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. 2019. Reactors: A deterministic model for composable reactive systems. In 8th International Workshop on Model-Based Design of Cyber Physical Systems (CyPhy’19), Vol. LNCS 11971. Springer-Verlag. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41131-2_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. M. Lohstroh and E. A. Lee. 2019. Deterministic actors. In 2019 Forum for Specification and Design Languages (FDL’19). 1–8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FDL.2019.8876922Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Marten Lohstroh, Christian Menard, Alexander Schulz-Rosengarten, Matthew Weber, Jeronimo Castrillon, and Edward A. Lee. 2020. A language for deterministic coordination across multiple timelines. In Forum for Specification and Design Languages (FDL’20). IEEE. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FDL50818.2020.9232939Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Edward N. Lorenz. 1963. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20 (1963), 130–141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020<0130:DNF>2.0.CO;2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. David B. Malament. 2008. Norton’s slippery slope. Philosophy of Science 75 (December 2008), 799–816. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/594525Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Leonard R. Marino. 1981. General theory of metastable operation. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-30, 2 (1981), 107–115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Christian Menard, Andrés Goens, Marten Lohstroh, and Jeronimo Castrillon. 2020. Achieving derterminism in adaptive AUTOSAR. In Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE’20). Grenoble, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Michael Mendler, Thomas R. Shiple, and Gérard Berry. 2012. Constructive Boolean circuits and the exactness of timed ternary simulation. Formal Methods in System Design 40, 3 (2012), 283–329. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-012-0144-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Robin Milner. 1980. A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 92. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Robin Milner. 1989. Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Philipp Moritz, Robert Nishihara, Stephanie Wang, Alexey Tumanov, Richard Liaw, Eric Liang, William Paul, Michael I. Jordan, and Ion Stoica. 2017. Ray: A distributed framework for emerging AI applications. CoRR abs/1712.05889 (2017). arxiv:1712.05889.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. John D. Norton. 2007. Causation as folk science. In Causation, Physics, and the Constitution of Reality, Huw Price and Richard Corry (Eds.). Clarendon Press, Oxford, Book section 2, 11–44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. David Park. 1980. Concurrency and automata on infinite sequences. In Theoretical Computer Science, Deussen P. (Ed.), Vol. LNCS 104. Springer, Berlin. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0017309Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. David A. Patterson, Garth Gibson, and Randy Katz. 1988. A case for redundant arrays of inexpensive disks (RAID). In International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD’88). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/50202.50214Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie. 2018. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Karl Popper. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co., London and New York. Taylor & Francis edition, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Morgan Quigley, Ken Conley, Brian Gerkey, Josh Faust, Tully Foote, Jeremy Leibs, Rob Wheeler, and Andrew Ng. 2009. ROS: An open-source robot operating system. In International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA’09) Workshop on Open Source Software 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Raymond Roestenburg, Rob Bakker, and Rob Williams. 2016. Akka In Action. Manning Publications Co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Carlo Rovelli. 2017. Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. Riverhead Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Carlo Rovelli. 2018. The Order of Time. Riverhead Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Bertrand Russell. 1913. On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 13 (1913), 1–26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Davide Sangiorgi. 2009. On the origins of bisimulation and coinduction. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 31, 4 (2009), 15:1–15:41. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1516507.1516510Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Alexander Schulz-Rosengarten, Reinhard von Hanxleden, Frédéric Mallet, Robert De Simone, and Julien Deantoni. 2018. Time in SCCharts. In 2018 Forum on Specification Design Languages (FDL’18). 5–16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Martin A. Sehr, Marten Lohstroh, Mathew Weber, Ines Ugalde, Martin Witte, Joerg Neidig, Stephan Hoeme, Mehrdad Niknami, and Edward A. Lee. 2021. Programmable logic controllers in the context of industry 4.0. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 17, 5 (May 2021), 3523–3533. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.3007764Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. A. M. Turing. 1936. On computable numbers with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 42 (1936), 230–265.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Reinhard von Hanxleden et al. 2014. SCCharts: Sequentially constructive Statecharts for safety-critical applications. In ACM SIGPLAN Conf. on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 372–383. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2594291.2594310Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Reinhard von Hanxleden, Timothy Bourke, and Alain Girault. 2017. Real-time ticks for synchronous programming. In 2017 Forum on Specification and Design Languages (FDL’17). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. G. Winskel. 1993. The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Remigiusz Wisniewski, Iwona Grobelna, and Andrei Karatkevich. 2020. Determinism in cyber-physical systems specified by interpreted petri nets. Sensors 20, 5565 (2020), 22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/s20195565Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Stephen Wolfram. 2002. A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. David H. Wolpert. 2008. Physical limits of inference. Physica 237, 9 (2008), 1257–1281. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2008.03.040Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Yang Zhao, Edward A. Lee, and Jie Liu. 2007. A programming model for time-synchronized distributed real-time systems. In Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS’07). IEEE, 259–268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Henrik Zinkernagel. 2010. Causal Fundamentalism in Physics. Springer, Dordrecht.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Determinism

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!