Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-xkcpr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:32:45.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causal Independence in EPR Arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Jeremy Butterfield
Jeremy Butterfield*
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I show that locality, as it occurs in EPR arguments for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, can be construed as causal independence understood in terms of Lewis’ counterfactual analysis of causation. This construal has two benefits. It supplements recent analyses, which have not treated locality in detail. And it clarifies the relation between two EPR arguments that have recently been distinguished. It shows that the simpler of the two is more complex than has been thought; and that the other argument does not need ‘counterfactual definiteness’.

I aim to show that in the EPR argument (Einstein et al. 1935) for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (QM), locality can be taken as causal independence, understood in terms of Lewis’ counterfactual analysis of causation.

Recent analyses of the EPR argument makes this construal of locality timely, for two reasons. First, these analyses typically say little about locality.

Type
Part IV. Quantum Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 213 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to audiences in Cambridge and Princeton; and especially to Alan Hajek, Martin Jones, and Rob Clifton.

References

Ballentine, L. and Jarrett, J. (1987), “Bell’s Theorem: Does Quantum Mechanics contradict Relativity?”, American Journal of Physics 55: 696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. (1964), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195-200; reprinted in his Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 14–21; page reference to reprint.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935), “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” Physical Review 48: 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, J. (1990), “David Lewis Meets John Bell’,” submitted to Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Clifton, R., Butterfield, J. and Redhead, M. (1990), “Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds - A Stapp in the Wrong Direction”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41: 5–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”, Physical Review 47: 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d’Espagnat, B. (1975), “Use of Inequalities for the Experimental Test of a General Conception of the Foundations of Microphysics”, Physical Review D11: 1424–1435.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1986), The Shaky Game, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1989), “Correlations and Inefficiency: Testing the Bell Inequalities”, Foundations of Physics 19: 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajek, A.; and Bub, J. (1990), “EPR”, paper read at the April 1990 Central Division Meeting, American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
Healey, R. (1990), “Holism and Separability”, unpublished.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (1987), “EPR, Bell and Collapse: a Route Around “Stochastic” Hidden Variables”, Philosophy of Science 54: 558–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, D. (1985), “Einstein on Locality and Separability”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16:171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, D. (1989), “Holism, Separability and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments”, in Cushing, J. and McMullin, E. (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973), Counterfactuals, Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986), Philosophical Papers Volume II, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitowsky, I. (1989), Quantum Probability - Quantum Logic, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Redhead, M. (1987), Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wessels, L. (1981), “The ‘EPR’ Argument: A Post-Mortem”, Philosophical Studies 40: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar