  This paper presents and philosophically assesses three types of results on
the observational equivalence of continuous-time measure-theoretic
deterministic and indeterministic descriptions. The first results establish
observational equivalence to abstract mathematical descriptions. The second
results are stronger because they show observational equivalence between
deterministic and indeterministic descriptions found in science. Here I also
discuss Kolmogorov's contribution. For the third results I introduce two new
meanings of `observational equivalence at every observation level'. Then I show
the even stronger result of observational equivalence at every (and not just
some) observation level between deterministic and indeterministic descriptions
found in science. These results imply the following. Suppose one wants to find
out whether a phenomenon is best modeled as deterministic or indeterministic.
Then one cannot appeal to differences in the probability distributions of
deterministic and indeterministic descriptions found in science to argue that
one of the descriptions is preferable because there is no such difference.
Finally, I criticise the extant claims of philosophers and mathematicians on
observational equivalence.
