Essai philosophique sur les probabilités¶
Laplace, P. -. (1814). Essai philosophique sur les probabilités.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Determinism
- Pierre-Simon Laplace gave the canonical statement in 1814: an intelligence that knew all the forces and the position of every particle would see "nothing uncertain, and the future, just like the past, would be present before its eyes" (Laplace, 1814).
This sourceEnglish translation: A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (F. W. Truscott & F. L. Emory, Trans.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1902. Canonical statement of Laplacian determinism via the demon thought-experiment: an intelligence knowing all forces and positions would see past and future as a single present; the quoted phrasing ("nothing would be uncertain and the future, like the past, would be present before its eyes") is verified against the text (077, 081).
SupportedVerified against the work's full text
Laplace's essay states the vast-intelligence passage: knowing all forces and positions, nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes.
“Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it”
- Pierre-Simon Laplace gave the canonical statement in 1814: an intelligence that knew all the forces and the position of every particle would see "nothing uncertain, and the future, just like the past, would be present before its eyes" (Laplace, 1814).
- Stochasticity vs. Determinism
- Stochastic systems exhibit state-indeterminacy (initial conditions → probability distribution over futures) and violate retrodiction (the present state is compatible with multiple pasts)—a structural opposition Laplace (1814) framed in his famous demon argument for complete state-specification.
This sourceEnglish translation: A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (F. W. Truscott & F. L. Emory, Trans.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1902. Canonical statement of Laplacian determinism via the demon thought-experiment: an intelligence knowing all forces and positions would see past and future as a single present.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Laplace's essay gives the demon argument for complete state-specification, but treats chance as ignorance and nowhere frames stochastic indeterminacy or failed retrodiction as an opposition.
“nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes.”
- Stochastic systems exhibit state-indeterminacy (initial conditions → probability distribution over futures) and violate retrodiction (the present state is compatible with multiple pasts)—a structural opposition Laplace (1814) framed in his famous demon argument for complete state-specification.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:311f9f68765b · see in the full table