How to hunt quantum causes

Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):205 - 231 (1991)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Reichenbach worked in an era when philosophers were hopeful about the unity of science, and particularly about unity of method. He looked for universal tests of causal connectedness that could be applied across disciplines and independently of specific modeling assumptions. The hunt for quantum causes reminds us that his hopes were too optimistic. The mark method is not even a starter in testing for causal links between outcomes in E.P.R., because our background hypotheses about these links are too thin to supply the kind of information we need to put the method into play. When we turn to conventional statistical methods, we have seen that one test proposed — robustness of the conditional probabilities — can be conclusive only when we know that there are no other causal factors at work. In the particular case of E.P.R., it has often been assumed that this antecedent question can be settled by applying Reichenbach's conjunctive fork condition. But that application is in no way free of further modeling assumptions. Cartwright (1989) has shown that the conjunctive fork is only a necessary condition on a common cause under very limiting restrictions (restrictions that take one far from the case of maximal commonality); and she has argued that these special conditions are not satisfied in E.P.R.Finally, even given the assumption that there are no other causes at work, the significance of robustness for E.P.R. is unclear. We need a model which tells us how one outcome would influence the other; without that, there is no way of interpreting the results of the robustness test so that it is decisive. In each of the approaches we discussed, Reichenbach provided the crucial guiding ideas that underlay our construction of a causality test; but the articulation of a specific criterion depends on the other details of the model. What is a criterion for a specific kind of link in one model need not be in another. We have illustrated with robustness and E.P.R., but we take the point to be perfectly general: there are no tests of causality outside of models which already have significant causal structure built in

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Stag Hunt.Brian Skyrms - 2001 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 75 (2):31 - 41.
Quantum Disjunctive Facts.James H. McGrath - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:76 - 86.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
117 (#149,742)

6 months
13 (#184,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Nancy Cartwright
London School of Economics

Citations of this work

Independence, invariance and the causal Markov condition.Daniel M. Hausman & James Woodward - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):521-583.
Discovering Quantum Causal Models.Sally Shrapnel - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (1):1-25.
Causation, Measurement Relevance and No-conspiracy in EPR.Iñaki San Pedro - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):137-156.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The Direction of Time.Hans Reichenbach - 1956 - Philosophy 34 (128):65-66.
Incompleteness, non locality and realism. A prolegomenon to the philosophy of quantum mechanics.Michael Redhead - 1987 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 180 (4):712-713.
Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre.Hans Reichenbach - 1928 - Annalen der Philosophie Und Philosophischen Kritik 7:21-22.
Causes and mixed probabilities.David Papineau - 1990 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):79 – 88.

Add more references