# Riddled attraction basins and determinism in classical physics

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
581 views

A riddled basin is a “basin of attraction [with] the property that every point in the basin has pieces of another attractor’s basin arbitrarily nearby,” explains the review paper “Fractal structures in nonlinear dynamics” (2009), by J. Aguirre et al.

In other words, a riddled basin is a region of the phase space that can be thought of as a bulky “fat fractal” boundary between different attraction basins. Every neighborhood of a point in a riddled basin, no matter how small, contains points that will eventually reach different attractors. Therefore, no matter how accurate is the specification of the starting point, the attractor that the system will eventually reach is undetermined.

Riddled basins, which have been found in many dissipative systems, “show that totally deterministic systems might present in practice an absolute lack of predictability,” note Aguirre at al. See also the book “Transient Chaos: Complex Dynamics on Finite Time Scales” (2011), by Ying-Cheng Lai and Tamás Tél.

I suspect that the fractal depth of riddled basins might be widespread in real-world, dissipative dynamical systems, and perhaps be the rule rather than the exception. If so, chaotic evolution is really nondeterministic.

Nature “knows” the starting point of the system as an infinitely precise real number. But we can’t know the starting point with infinite precision, and any finitely precise starting point contains the possibility of different outcomes.

In view of this, does it even make sense to claim that classical physics is deterministic in principle (though nondeterministic in practice)? Or shouldn't we, instead, follow Born and accept that the inevitably finite precision of initial conditions makes classical (non-quantum) physics nondeterministic in principle?

“As a mathematical tool the concept of a real number represented by a nonterminating decimal fraction is exceptionally important and fruitful. As the measure of a physical quantity it is nonsense… concepts which correspond to no conceivable observation should be eliminated from physics… the determinism of classical physics turns out to be an illusion, created by overrating mathematico-logical concepts.” - Max Born's Nobel Prize lecture.

asked May 9, 2018 in Chat
recategorized May 9, 2018
Most voted comments show all comments

Every experimentalist knows that his measurements must be sufficiently representative and for that one applies a statistical treatment in order to arrive at a deterministic result. Thus uncertainties and inequalities are an essential part of physics in general and in creating a deterministic picture in CM or elswhere. In other words, a deterministic (simplified) picture in physics must be accompanied with certain inequalities and uncertainties; then there is no temptation to apply a theory outside its region of applicability.

One can achieve a non deterministic result even without "riddled basins" if one messes up with completely different experimental data of completely different experiments.

''Nature “knows” the starting point of the system as an infinitely precise real number.'' But not the dynamical equations, as there are always interactions with the worlds outside the system. not accounted for by any dynamical equation for the system alone. This already introduces enough indeterminism for any proper subsystem of the universe.

Thus for systems different from the whole universe, determinism is always an idealization - just as classical mechanics itself.

I moved this to chat since the question posed is a philosophical one, not one of theoretical physics.

@GiulioPrisco: You can make this proposal in chat, and see what happens.

Clearly a question asking ''Does it really make sense to claim...?" is philosophical and invites personal opinions, not physical theory or experiment. Thus there cannot be clear answers, but just discussion. This is what chat is for.

The point is that one should not earn reputation for mere discussion but only for physical substance. You can earn points for discussion on other online sites, e.g., PhysicsForums.

Physics would be to investigate the properties of systems with riddled basins.

@ArnoldNeumaier re "Clearly a question asking ''Does it really make sense to claim...?" is philosophical and invites personal opinions, not physical theory or experiment. Thus there cannot be clear answers, but just discussion. This is what chat is for."

OK, fair enough.

However, I think personal opinions are useful in formulating/interpreting physical theories. Can you name one physical theory that didn't start as a personal opinion (and often a controversial one)?

I don't care about "earning points," but about getting answers (OK, opinions). Chat is not on the front page, so most people don't see chat threads without searching.

I agree that personal opinions can be useful, but on PO, chat is the place for it.

Anyone interested in chat can simply press the chat button.

## Your answer

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.