Skip to main content
Log in

How to hunt quantum causes

  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cartwright, N.: 1989, ‘Quantum Causes: The Lesson of the Bell Inequalities’, in Philosophy of the Natural Sciences: Proceedings of the 13th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Verlag Hölder-Pichter Tempsky, Vienna, pp. 120–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. and Chang, H.: forthcoming, in a volume on realism edited by J. Margolis.

  • Kennedy, J. B.: 1988, ‘Controllable Quantum Signalling’, Lecture at the 13th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg, Austria.

  • Mackie, J. L.: 1980, Cement of the Universe, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S.: 1872, A System of Logic, Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papineau, D., 1989a, ‘Pure, Mixed, and Spurious Probabilities and Their Significance for a Reductionist Theory of Causation’, in P. Kitcher and W. C. Salmon (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v.XIII: Scientific Explanation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 307–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papineau, D.: 1989b, ‘Common Causes’, M.S., Cambridge University.

  • Papineau, D.: 1990, ‘Causes and Mixed Probabilities’, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 4 no. 1, pp. 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H.: 1928, Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, English translation, 1958, Dover, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H.: 1956, The Direction of Time, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redhead, M. L. G.: 1987, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd impression with new preface, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redhead, M. L. G.: 1989, ‘Nonfactorizability, Stochastic Causality, and Passion-At-A-Distance’, in J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp. 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C.: 1984, Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

We would like to thank Michael Redhead, Jeremy Butterfield, and J. B. Kennedy for several conversations about robustness, and David Papineau for the use of his manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cartwright, N., Jones, M. How to hunt quantum causes. Erkenntnis 35, 205–231 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388286

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388286

Keywords

Navigation