Theoria 19 (3):271-300 (2004)
|Abstract||In an influential article published in 1982, Bas Van Fraassen developed an argument against causal realism on the basis of an analysis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations of quantum mechanics. Several philosophers of science and experts in causal inference -including some causal realists like Wesley Salmon- have accepted Van Fraassen’s argument, interpreting it as a proof that the quantum correlations cannot be given any causal model. In this paper I argue that Van Fraassen’s article can also be interpreted as a good guide to the different causal models available for the EPR correlations, and their relative virtues. These models in turn give us insight into some of the unusual features that quantum propensicies might have.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
José Luis Rolleri (2007). La Teoría de la Explicación Causal de Salmon y la Mecánica Cuántica (Salmon's Theory of Causal Explanation and Quantum Mechanics). Crítica 39 (116):3 - 35.
Hasok Chang & Nancy Cartwright (1993). Causality and Realism in the EPR Experiment. Erkenntnis 38 (2):169 - 190.
Mauricio Suárez (2004). Causal Processes and Propensities in Quantum Mechanics. Theoria 19 (3):271-300.
Mauricio Suárez (2007). Quantum Propensities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):418-438.
Peter Kosso (2000). Quantum Mechanics and Realism. Foundations of Science 5 (1):47-60.
Malcolm R. Forster (1986). Unification and Scientific Realism Revisited. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:394 - 405.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,629 of 722,750 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,750 )
How can I increase my downloads?