Assuming the world were deterministic, why would we still need to introduce stochasticity into our simulations?
1 Answers
In a nutshell, to simplify models.
Let’s go with your assumption, even though I don’t believe it. If the universe is completely deterministic, then in any given scenario you choose to model there is one and only one correct answer. Unless you include the complete state space of absolutely everything that determines that answer, your model is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
For instance, if you want to predict how long it will take to fly from New York to London, you need to know the vector sums of all forces acting on the aircraft, which means you need the complete state (down to the atomic level) of the aircraft itself, the passengers, the atmosphere, fluctuations in the magnetic field of the earth, cosmic rays that can trigger upper atmospheric events, etc, etc, ad nauseam. Exclusion of any aspect of the potential forces involved makes your answer wrong.
Clearly, there’s no way to measure it all, and even if there was, there’s no way to maintain so much state information in any computing device we can build. And so we simplify and acknowledge that there is some degree of uncertainty in our model’s predictions/solutions.
When you embrace the existence of uncertainty, it brings us directly to stochastic solutions. One view of probability is that it is a mathematical formalism for modeling uncertainty. Rather than try to model every physical aspect of an aircraft’s flight, we can characterize the likely outcomes based on what proportion of flights require less (or more) than any particular amount of time, i.e., describing the distribution of possible flight times.
Once you adopt distributional modeling, you can see how distributional behaviors propagate though other parts of a system—either analytically, if your system is sufficiently simple, or by generating realizations of the distributions and using replication and sampling via simulation.

- 18,696
- 4
- 27
- 56
-
thank you for the answer. I believe even the world would be deterministic there would be more than one way to reach the correct one and only state and randomness might be useful to choose among these methods. But again if the result is deterministic the best solution would also be unique and would not require randomness to choose among others. This question is kind of recursive inside and makes me sick to even try to find a way to fool it. – koksalb Apr 11 '17 at 23:48
-
2@koksalb I disagree with your assessment, deterministic systems can have state spaces entirely beyond our capacity to measure and store. In fact, Kalman (of Kalman filtering fame) proved back in 1960 that there are deterministic [linear systems which are non-observable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observability), i.e., you could watch the input-output behavior for eternity and not be able to infer the internal state of the system. Good luck with modeling a system where you can never determine its internal state... – pjs Apr 12 '17 at 00:42