to Better Understand and Anticipate
A Bridge between Science and Philosophy
for Rational Thinking
to Better Understand and Anticipate
A Bridge between Science and Philosophy
for Rational Thinking
Version date: January 7, 2009
Purpose of this text
This book shows first that philosophical determinism does not keep its promise when it asserts that it is possible to predict the future and to mentally reconstruct the past.
It then shows how the principles of causality and of scientific determinism are natural consequences of fundamental properties of the Universe.
It then clarifies those two principles, and extends their definition so that they govern the evolution properties of all laws of nature. Those laws then follow extended determinism, whose constructive definition structures it like an axiomatic system; we then prove that it is the only principle that governs all physical laws of evolution.
The book then shows how randomness and chaos intervene only in specific situations of nature, and how extended determinism takes all those situations into account. It also shows how predictability limits also originate in various forms of imprecision, of complexity and of nature's refusal of precision.
Since rational decisions require understanding and predicting, they require knowing extended determinism. The book uses recent scientific advances in the fields of quantum physics and genetics to show limits of the possibility to predict evolution results and to obtain the required precision.
The book then draws the consequences of extended determinism on rational thinking: in spite of his free will, man remains enslaved by the desires originating in his genetic inheritance, his acquired culture and knowledge, and his living context. The book explains how he can, nevertheless, follow the precepts of critical rationalism to find scientific truths, and to what extent he can understand the world and himself.
Last, the book shows the absurdity of pseudo-scientific notions such as "The anthropic principle". It also describes the modern scientific solution of the old philosophical issue of the "First cause".
This easy-to-read book is therefore a contribution to rational thinking intended for intellectuals with modest scientific background who wish to bring it up-to-date in the fields of quantum physics, cosmology, information technology and genetics.
Given the length of the book's complete text, about 503 pages [Book], it is recommended to read first the summary of its main ideas, which is 15 times shorter [Summary]. All scientific terms such as "eigenvalues" and "matter waves" are explained in the book; understanding them fully is not necessary in this introductory text.
[Summary] "Contributions of Extended Determinism to Rational Thinking" (35 pages) - http://www.danielmartin.eu/Philo/Summary.pdf
The traditional definition of determinism was published by the French mathematician, physicist and astronomer Pierre-Simon de Laplace in his book of 1814 "A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities"
"We should consider the present state of the Universe as the effect of its previous state and the cause of the state that will follow. An intelligence which, at a given time, would know all of the forces that govern nature and the respective states of all its beings – assuming it is vast enough to analyze that data – would grasp in the same formula the movements of the largest bodies of the Universe and those of its lightest atom; nothing would be uncertain for it, the future and the past alike would stand before its eyes."
(That intelligence is often called "Laplace's demon").
According to this founding text, philosophical determinism asserts that:
§ The future is completely determined by the present;
§ The future is completely predictable given perfect knowledge of the present;
§ Perfect knowledge of the present suffices to mentally reconstruct all of the past;
§ For each present situation there is a single causal chain (of events or situations) that starts infinitely far in the past and extends infinitely far in the future.
Philosophical determinism is contradicted by some facts
Philosophical determinism, which promises the possibility to predict all of the future and to mentally reconstruct all of the past, is contradicted by several phenomena of nature quoted in the book. Since a single counterexample suffices to contradict an assertive statement, here is one.
The atoms of a sample of uranium 238 will decay (decompose) spontaneously, without any cause other than passing time; an atom of uranium will decay into an atom of helium and an atom of thorium. The number of atoms of uranium 238 that decay per unit of time follows a known law: 50% of the atoms of a sample of arbitrary size will decay in a fixed amount of time T called "the half-life of uranium 238"; then half of the rest (one quarter) will decay during the next period of time T; then half of the rest (one eighth) will decay during the next period of time T, etc.
Natural (spontaneous) radioactive decay is attributed to the instability of the excitation energy of the neutrons and protons of a radioactive atom's nucleus. That energy varies spontaneously – a phenomenon deemed impossible in traditional deterministic physics, because it attributes an atom's decay to chance. Due to a tunnel effect, that excitation energy may sometimes exceed the potential energy that holds the nucleus together (known as the element's fission barrier), causing such a considerable deformation that the nucleus decays. The tunnel effect and its spontaneous nature can only be explained using the mathematical tools of quantum mechanics, which contradict traditional determinism by introducing spontaneous variations of energy levels and probabilities in the occurrence of an event.
Contrary to the promise of philosophical determinism to predict the future, it is impossible to know which atoms will decay during a given period of time, and when a given atom will decay. Radioactive decay follows a statistical law that applies to a population of atoms, but does not predict the evolution of a given atom.
In addition, when a sample contains decayed atoms, it is impossible to know for any one of them at what time it decayed, which contradicts philosophical determinism as a principle for mentally reconstructing past events knowing the current situation.
Therefore, philosophical determinism cannot keep its promises to predict the future and mentally reconstruct the past: this principle is false in the case of radioactive decay. And since, according to critical rationalism explained in the book, a single counterexample suffices to disprove an assertion, we shall consider philosophical determinism erroneous, in spite of the fact that its definition is in some dictionaries.
Causality and determinism
Ever since man needs to understand the world around him and predict the evolution of situations, knowing determinism is important for rational thinking. And since philosophical determinism does not keep its promise to predict, we will delve into the issue of understanding and predicting on a less ambitious basis. We will start over from the causal postulate on which philosophical determinism is based, and ignore for the time being its promises to predict the future and reconstruct the past.
The causal postulate
Ever since man existed, he noticed links between situations and phenomena: a given situation, S, is always followed by phenomenon P. A natural process of induction made man assert a general postulate "The same cause always produces the same effect". Reflecting on the conditions that governed the chains of events he observed, he inferred the following causal postulate stated below as a necessary and sufficient condition:
Definition of the causal postulate
§ Necessary condition: in the absence of the cause, the consequence does not happen; every observed situation or phenomenon was preceded by a cause, and nothing may exist without having been created.
§ Sufficient condition: if the cause exists, its consequence happens (it is certain).
However, that consequence is an evolution phenomenon, not a final outcome: we renounce the promise to predict the result of the evolution and retain only the postulate that it is initiated.
In some favorable cases, the causal postulate meets the need of rational thinking to understand and predict:
§ The necessary condition allows explaining a consequence by following the flow of time backwards up to its cause;
§ The sufficient condition allows predicting a consequence by following the flow of time forwards from its cause: the evolution is certainly initiated.
In order to better understand and predict, rational thinking requires an addition to the above causal postulate; it needs a rule that guarantees stability (reproducibility) in time and space.
The same cause always produces the same effect: the effect of a cause is reproducible. The physical evolution laws consequences of a given cause are stable; they are the same everywhere and at all times.
Consequently, a stable situation never evolved and never will; it is its own cause and its own consequence! Taking into account an evolution after time t requires changing the definition of the observed system. In fact, the flow of time can only be observed when something changes; if nothing changes, time seems to stop. The stability rule is not trivial; one of its consequences is Newton's first law of motion, the law of inertia:
"The velocity vector of a body which is motionless or moves in a straight line at constant velocity will remain constant as long as no force acts on the body."
As far as determinism is concerned, this law implies that motion in a straight line at a constant velocity is a stable situation that will not evolve until a force is applied to the body; such a stable situation is its own cause and its own consequence!
The stability rule allows inducing a physical law of nature from a collection of cause-consequence sequences: after seeing the same cause-consequence sequence many times, I postulate that the same cause always produces the same consequence. We may now group the causal postulate and the stability rule to form a principle that governs all laws of nature describing a time evolution, the postulate of scientific determinism.
The postulate of scientific determinism governs the time evolution of a situation due to laws of nature, in accordance with the causal postulate and the stability rule.
The deterministic nature of a law of the Universe does not entail the predictability of its results or their precision. Philosophers who believe the opposite are mistaken.
Scientific determinism and predicting
In the definitions of the causal postulate and of scientific determinism we renounced predicting evolution results. Since we know that a cause initiates the application of a law of nature, predicting an evolution result requires predicting the result of such a law.
Nature recognizes situations-causes and automatically initiates applicable laws each time, but it does not know the concept of result, a notion of interest only to humans. This remark allows us to eliminate right away a cause of unpredictability independent of nature: supernatural intervention. Obviously, if we admit that a supernatural intervention may initiate, prevent or alter an evolution, we renounce predicting its result. We will therefore postulate materialism; we will also assume that no intervention originating outside our Universe or independent of its laws is possible. The opposing doctrines of materialism and spiritualism are described and debated in Part 2 of this book, before Part 3, which is devoted to determinism.
Three types of reasons that prevent predicting the result of a deterministic law of evolution are imprecision, complexity and chance.
Since the causal postulate and scientific determinism do not promise to predict a result, they do not promise to predict its precision either, when it is predictable; and this is regrettable since man often needs precise results.
Here are cases where the precision of the calculated or measured result of an evolution law may be considered inadequate by man.
Imprecision of the initial values of an evolution, or of a result's measure
An evolution law applies to variables. If those variables are known with insufficient precision, the calculated result may also be too imprecise. If a quantity is measured, that measure's precision may be inadequate.
Imprecision or non-convergence of calculations
If the calculations required by a formula or to solve an equation are not sufficiently precise, the result may be imprecise. This problem is serious, for example, when solving a system of equations requires inverting a matrix with thousands of rows and columns: inadequate precision may produce degeneracy, which makes calculating the inverse matrix impossible. It may also simply produce a result that is insufficiently precise.
When a physical phenomenon has a mathematical model, a computing algorithm in the model may sometimes be unable to provide its result, for example because it converges too slowly. Sometimes, the algorithm stops because a calculation is impossible: the book shows such a case in wave propagation.
Sometimes a very small variation of a phenomenon's initial data, too small to be controlled, produces a considerable and unpredictable variation of the result of a phenomenon whose law is precise. This happens, for example, for the direction in which a pencil standing vertically on its tip will fall. It also happens when predicting the position, thousands of years ahead of time, of an asteroid whose motion is perturbed by the attraction of planets.
Chaos is a phenomenon that amplifies effects enough to switch from one solution of a mathematical model to another. It occurs, for example, in turbulent flows of liquids and in genetic evolution of species, often producing solutions grouped near particular points of phase space termed attractors. In practice, chaos limits the predictability horizon.
The book quotes several laws of physics where nature limits precision. Examples:
§ When a corpuscle moves in a field of electromagnetic force, its position and velocity cannot be determined with an uncertainty better than half the width of the accompanying wave packet. No matter how fast a photograph is taken (in a thought experiment), the corpuscle will always appear fuzzy.
Worse still, the more precise the determination of position, the less precise that of velocity, and vice-versa.
§ Nature's precision refusal may cause quantum fluctuations. Example: at a point of void space between atoms or even between galaxies, energy may vary suddenly without any cause other than nature's refusal of its precision and stability. This energy variation ΔE may be all the greater that its duration ΔT is small. On average, however, the energy at the fluctuation point remains constant: if nature "borrows" energy ΔE from surrounding empty space, it returns all of it less than Δt seconds later.
This phenomenon is far from negligible: a short while after the Big Bang when the Universe was born, it caused the formation of areas of high energy density that later became galaxies. From a predictability standpoint, it is impossible to predict where a fluctuation will occur, or when, or with what energy variation ΔE.
§ At atomic scale, nature allows superpositions of equation solutions. An atom may travel several trajectories simultaneously, producing interference fringes in Young's experiment, when it interferes with itself by going through two parallel slits several thousand atom diameters apart.
A molecule may be in several states at the same time. Example: quantum mechanics predicts that an ammonia molecule NH3, whose shape is a tetrahedron, may have its nitrogen atom vertex on one side or the other of the plane of its 3 hydrogen atoms. It predicts that this plane (whose 3 hydrogen atoms are light) may spontaneously switch to the other side of the (heavy) nitrogen atom vertex because of tunnel effect, without any intervening physical force or absorption of a photon's energy. The hydrogen triangle may oscillate between the two symmetrical positions with a frequency in the range of centimetric wavelengths. This prediction of quantum mechanics is confirmed by radio astronomy observations, both in light absorption and emission by ammonia molecules of interstellar space.
When an experiment determines the state of an NH3 molecule, nature chooses randomly which of the two symmetrical states it will reveal. Its choice is not completely random, it is an element of a predefined set of two elements called spectrum of eigenvalues of the experimental setup: natural randomness is limited to the choice of one of the values of the spectrum, all values of which are known precisely. In the case of the above ammonia molecule, nature chooses between two solutions, each with a certain predefined energy and shape.
§ Nature's refusal to satisfy man's need to know is spectacular in the non-separability phenomenon. The book quotes an experiment where two photons produced together (termed entangled photons) make up a single whole object even when the photons are 144 km apart: if one is absorbed, the other disappears immediately; the consequence is propagated from one to the other at infinite speed since they are part of the same initial object, which conserves its wholeness while it is deformed by the photons' motions.
In quantum physics, many human wishes of result prediction, precision or stability are denied by nature.
Relativity and causality
The book describes in detail a property of space-time, due to the speed of light, which compels one to reflect on the definition of the causality that governs the transition from one event to another. In certain specific cases, two events A and B may be seen by some observers in the order A then B, and by others in the order B then A! The first group of observers will know that A occurred before B, and will draw consequences different from observers of the second group, who will see B appear before A.
The overall effect of many perfectly deterministic phenomena may be unpredictable, even if each phenomenon is simple and its result is predictable. Example: consider a small closed container that holds billions of identical molecules of a liquid or a gas. Since these molecules have a temperature above absolute zero, they keep moving; their kinetic energy results from their temperature. Their agitation makes them bounce into each other and against the container's inner surface, their motion obeying well-known deterministic laws. In spite of their deterministic motions, it is impossible to know the position and velocity at a given time t of all molecules, because there are too many; therefore, it is impossible to calculate (predict) the position and velocity one second later of one particular molecule, because in the mean time it has bounced thousands of times against other moving molecules and against the container's inner surface.
That impossibility is very general: the combined effect of many deterministic phenomena with predictable individual evolutions is an unpredictable evolution, whether these phenomena are of the same type or not. From a philosophical point of view, we can assert that the complexity of a phenomenon with deterministic components generally produces an unpredictable evolution.
In theory that unpredictability does not exist, but in practice it does. It does not affect nature, which never hesitates or predicts the future, but it prevents man from predicting what nature will do. Nature's unpredictability grows with the number of simultaneous phenomena, their diversity, and the number of their interactions.
Actually, interactions between phenomena also affect their determinism. An evolution whose result affects the initial conditions of another evolution affects its stability rule, therefore also the reproducibility of its determinism, which hinders even more the prediction of its result.
That is why even though the most complex phenomena (the phenomena of living beings, of man's psyche, and of human society) are based only on predictable deterministic physical evolutions, their results are generally so unpredictable that man is under the impression that nature does anything. We shall come back to this issue below.
From a philosophical point of view, we should stop believing in chance as a principle of unpredictable behavior of nature. The Schrödinger equation of evolution, whose results are probabilistic matter waves, is deterministic in the traditional sense, and so is Newton's second law of motion, which is also based on energy conservation: a given initial situation always produces the same result, which is sometimes a set of results instead of a single result. No unpredictability there, nature is never unorthodox: in a given situation, its reaction is always the same.
Man must get used to the fact that some situations produce multiple consequences: either several laws of evolution acting in parallel, each producing a single result, or a single law of evolution producing multiple results. Therefore, when man tries to know the result of evolution (for example using a measuring device), nature chooses one randomly among those resulting from the initial situation and displays it.
Nature's choosing process follows a simple rule governed by a form of determinism that applies to a set of alternatives instead of applying to a single alternative: if a given experiment is iterated a large number of times, each possible alternative appears the same number of times. This set determinism also governs other phenomena; example: radioactive decay of uranium 238, where determinism governs the proportion of decaying atoms per unit of time, not the choice of a particular atom that will decay.
Similarly, there is no randomness in the position, the velocity or the energy of a corpuscle, there is indetermination, a refusal of nature to grant us the possibility of infinite precision that would make us feel comfortable; and this refusal is due to the wavelike nature of each corpuscle.
The unpredictability associated with local energy fluctuations is not due to chance, either. It is a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that during a short time interval Δt an energy is not defined with an uncertainty less than ΔE, where ΔE.Δt ≥ ½ä (quantity which is a constant of the Universe). Those fluctuations only embody a refusal of precision on the part of nature, a refusal that only lasts for a short while and does not alter the average local energy. We should accept the existence of those fluctuations as we accept the imprecision on the position of a moving corpuscle, located "somewhere" in its wave packet: in none of those cases does nature act randomly by doing anything. Other examples of nature's limited precision are given in the book in sections that describe chaotic phenomena.
§ Randomness affects the predictability of consequences, not consequences proper (evolution laws or situations); predictability is a human wish nature ignores.
§ In nature's laws, randomness occurs only when an element is chosen in a predefined set of values of a measurable quantity or of applicable laws of evolution.
§ A random choice by nature always obeys one of its laws, nature choosing an alternative among the solutions allowed by that law. The choice never violates another law; in particular, it never violates thermodynamics or conservation of matter+energy.
§ Let us not confuse chance (unpredictability) with indetermination (nature's refusal to be precise).
§ More generally, determinism and predictability are different concepts: the latter does not necessarily result from the former (definition of scientific determinism).
Conclusions about predictability
We now know that there are three types of reasons that prevent or limit the prediction of consequences: imprecision, complexity and chance. The latter compels us to make clear the causal postulate: in the sentence "if the cause exists, its consequence happens" we must interpret consequence of a situation as a possibility to be a plural, multiple consequences.
Imprecision, complexity and chance reflect the intrinsic nature of the laws of the Universe, that man cannot circumvent, and against which rebelling is out of question. Therefore, predicting a result (or results) should be done as the case may be, each law being a particular case.
Let us see details of this subject. We saw above, in the section about chance, that in some situations nature had multiple reactions:
§ Either by initiating several evolution laws simultaneously, each law acting independently and providing a single result.
This happens, for example, in quantum physics, when the trajectory of a corpuscle between a point A and a point B is comprised of an infinite number of simultaneous trajectories, each taking a different path with a different velocity vector, but all trajectories ending in B at the same time.
This also happens when a corpuscle's trajectory is defined, at each moment, by a packet of superposed waves. Those waves are matter waves that describe probability of presence amplitudes that add up taking their phases into account. At a given time, if we could see the corpuscle, it would appear fuzzy near the center of the wave packet, as if it were composed of an infinite number of imprecisely superposed corpuscles.
But man never sees several consequences at the same time, he can only see their result (always unique); and in the case of a corpuscle traveling with its wave packet, that result, at a given moment, is a fuzzy position and an imprecise velocity.
§ Or by initiating a single evolution law giving multiple superposed results that exist simultaneously.
That state superposition may last for a while only at atomic scale. At macroscopic scale, the interaction between the state superposition and the environment (that occurs, for example, during a physical measure) terminates the superposition and communicates to the experimenter only one of the superposed states, chosen randomly. The transition from the superposed states to the unique state is termed decoherence, and it is irreversible.
In each particular situation, in order to predict its evolution and the result (or results) of that evolution with the maximum precision allowed by nature, we shall now take into account all of the laws of nature, by redefining determinism in a constructive way and terming it extended determinism.
The book provides a detailed explanation of the Universe's properties that incite postulating causality. In this introduction, I will only enunciate those properties.
Properties of the Universe from which causality is derived
§ By uniformity of the Universe, I mean its homogeneity (same properties everywhere) and isotropy (at each point, same properties in all directions).
§ By stability of the Universe's properties, I mean the stability rule (reproducibility through time and space) of scientific determinism.
§ By coherence of the Universe's laws, I mean that they complement each other without ever contradicting each other. To be precise, they respect the three fundamental principles of logic: non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity, enunciated in the book.
§ By completeness of the Universe's laws, I mean the fact that nature has all the laws required to react to all situations and account for all phenomena (this is Kant's postulate of complete determination).
In short, nature never improvises; it does not have occasional laws; randomness is limited to choosing between predetermined evolution laws or between predetermined results of a particular law.
In the rest of this text, we shall postulate the uniformity, stability, coherence and completeness of the Universe's laws, and we shall define extended determinism as follows:
Constructive definition of extended determinism
Usually a definition describes a word's meaning. Since such a descriptive definition is not suitable for extended determinism, I use below a constructive definition that allows an infinite extension of this notion deduced from properties of the Universe's laws.
Construction: extended determinism first includes scientific determinism, defined above. Then it includes the evolution rules of all the laws of nature, incorporated as follows:
§ We consider all the laws of evolution of the Universe, one by one, in an arbitrary order;
§ Consider one of those laws. If its evolution rule is already included in extended determinism, we ignore it and consider the next law; if its evolution rule is not included yet, we incorporate it in the definition of extended determinism;
§ Whenever we incorporate the evolution rule of a new law, we verify its coherence with rules already included, in order to conform to nature where no evolution law contradicts another law in a given situation. In principle, this verification is useless if the wordings of the laws respect the coherence rule of the Universe's laws.
Validity of this constructive approach
As defined above, extended determinism is an axiomatic system, whose axioms of facts are the initial conditions of the various evolution laws, and whose deduction axioms are the corresponding evolution rules, according to the following semantics: if a situation satisfies a given set of conditions, then it evolves following a given rule – a rule that may correspond to one evolution law, or to several evolution laws initiated in parallel.
The theoretical validity of that approach was studied and justified by logicians. They showed how an axiomatic system may be complemented gradually, by adding new axioms whenever facts or deduction rules appear that may not be derived from existing axioms, but whose addition is suggested by the field's semantics.
The practical validity of that approach results from its respect of the scientific method, which adds new laws to existing laws or replaces them, as knowledge progresses. The construction of extended determinism adds new rules of evolution from causes to consequences as required by new laws, excluding redundancies and contradictions.
Universality and uniqueness of extended determinism
Universality of extended determinism results from its constructive definition, which takes into account all the laws of the Universe: all those that are known at a given moment, and all those that will be discovered subsequently, as they are being discovered.
Uniqueness of extended determinism may be proven as follows. Being an axiomatic system, extended determinism is a set of fact rules and deduction rules, each rule originating (by construction) from at least one law of the Universe. Now consider a second extended determinism, S, supposed distinct from the first, F. Each rule R of S comes from at least one law of nature, a law that was taken into account when building F, since F was constructed from all the laws of nature; therefore, this rule R of S also exists in F. With the same reasoning, each rule of F also exists in S. Therefore, S and F having the same rules are in fact the same set, QED.
This is what I wanted to do. I needed about 500 pages to express it, sorry about the length. Writing the initial text in French required about one thousand hours, then translating it into English doubled that duration because English is not my mother tongue.
Advice to the reader
About mathematical formulas
This text contains many mathematical formulas in order to be as precise as possible. To a reader with adequate scientific knowledge they justify some statements regarding determinism. However, reading and understanding those formulas is not indispensable to understand the text; a reader who does not have enough scientific background - or who just does not care to read those formulas - may skip them.
About the text's style and structure
Philosophy texts are often structured like a novel, with few intermediate level titles, which leaves it to the reader to understand where he is in the succession of ideas. This text is structured as a five-level hierarchy of titles and subtitles, like a course. This should help the reader better understand the section he is reading, and quickly come back to a passage he already read.
About reading on a computer monitor
Both formats of this text, PDF* and HTML**, may be read on a computer's monitor to take advantage of the many hyperlinks that provide one-click access to the definition of a word, to additional information, or to a bibliographic reference on the Internet. A mouse click provides a return path to the previous display. The table of contents itself is a list of hyperlinks that provide direct access to sections of the five-level structure. Finally, it is much easier to find a given word in a computer text using the CONTROL+F keyboard command than it is to find it in a printed document; and copying a passage from one computer text to another is possible, whereas a printed text requires scanning and optical character recognition.
Hyperlink references whose name begins with a D, such as [D1], are at the end of Part 1. References whose name begins with an M, such as [M3], are at the end of Part 2. References that are integer numbers such as  are at the end of Part 3.
To avoid reading what you already know
The extensions of determinism that are the subject of this book make up its Part 3. However, since determinism is based on materialism, the definition and implications of materialism and its opposite, spiritualism, are summarized in Part 2. In addition, since the debate between materialism and spiritualism touches on the issue of God's existence, the three arguments for this existence stated during the previous centuries are in Part 1. So:
§ If you know those three arguments for God's existence – or if you are simply not interested in that subject - skip Part 1, which only contains a reminder of these arguments, and of the refutations stated to disprove them;
§ If you know the definitions of materialism and spiritualism, and the arguments in favor of or against each of those doctrines, skip Part 2, which is only a reminder of these definitions and arguments provided as an introduction to the issues of determinism.
However, it is better to read Part 3 from the beginning because it calls into question what many readers know about determinism.
· in English: http://www.danielmartin.eu/Philo/Determinism.pdf
· en français : http://www.danielmartin.eu/Philo/Determinisme.pdf
· in English (this text): http://www.danielmartin.eu/Philo/Determinism.htm
· en français : http://www.danielmartin.eu/Philo/Determinisme.htm
Table of contents