Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 239–257 | Cite as

Common causes and the direction of causation

  • Brad Weslake
Original Paper

Abstract

Is the common cause principle merely one of a set of useful heuristics for discovering causal relations, or is it rather a piece of heavy duty metaphysics, capable of grounding the direction of causation itself? Since the principle was introduced in Reichenbach’s groundbreaking work The Direction of Time (1956), there have been a series of attempts to pursue the latter program—to take the probabilistic relationships constitutive of the principle of the common cause and use them to ground the direction of causation. These attempts have not all explicitly appealed to the principle as originally formulated; it has also appeared in the guise of independence conditions, counterfactual overdetermination, and, in the causal modelling literature, as the causal markov condition. In this paper, I identify a set of difficulties for grounding the asymmetry of causation on the principle and its descendents. The first difficulty, concerning what I call the vertical placement of causation, consists of a tension between considerations that drive towards the macroscopic scale, and considerations that drive towards the microscopic scale—the worry is that these considerations cannot both be comfortably accommodated. The second difficulty consists of a novel potential counterexample to the principle based on the familiar Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) correlations in quantum mechanics.

Asymmetry of causation Backwards causation Causal markov condition Causality Causation Common cause Direction of causation Reichenbach Quantum mechanics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to audiences at Konstanz and Sydney, to the Russellian Society Discussion Group, and to Huw Price, Hartry Field, Miklós Rédei, Malcolm Forster, Iain Martel, Dave Lagnado, Tevye Krynski, John Cusbert, Iñaki San Pedro Garcia, Arif Ahmed, and three anonymous referees.

References

  1. Arntzenius, F. (1993). The common cause principle. In: D. Hull, M. Forbes, & K. Okruhlik (Eds.), Proceedings of the biennial meetings of the philosophy of science association 1992 (pp. 227–237). East Lansing MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  2. Arntzenius, F. (1999). Reichenbach’s common cause principle. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Winter 1999 Ed, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win1999/entries/physics-Rpcc/Google Scholar
  3. Belinfante, F. J. (1973). A Survey of hidden variable theories. Pergamon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.Google Scholar
  5. Berkovitz, J. (2002). On causal inference in determinism and indeterminism. In H. Atmanspacher & R. Bishop (Eds.), Between chance and choice: Interdisciplinary perspectives on determinism (pp. 237–278). Thorverton: Imprint Academic, http://www.umbc.edu/philosophy/berkovitz/papers/determinism.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1989). Quantum causes: The lesson of the Bell inequalities. In Philosophy of the natural sciences: Proceedings of the 13th international Wittgenstein symposium (pp. 120–127). Vienna: Verlag Hölder-Pichter Tempsky.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. (1999). Causal diversity and the markov condition. Synthese, 121(1–2), 3–27.Google Scholar
  8. Cartwright, N., & Jones, M. (1991). How to hunt quantum causes. Erkenntnis, 35(1–3), 205–231.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, H., & Cartwright, N. (1993). Causality and realism in the EPR experiment. Erkenntnis, 38(2), 169–190.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, J., Hall, N., & Paul, L. A. (2004). Counterfactuals and causation: History, problems, and prospects. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Counterfactuals and causation (pp. 1–58). Cambridge MA: MIT Press, http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262532565chap1.pdfGoogle Scholar
  11. Cramer, J. G. (1997). Quantum nonlocality and the possibility of superluminal effects. In M. G. Millis & G. S. Williamson (Eds.), NASA breakthrough propulsion physics workshop proceedings, http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int _rep/qmv _nl.html. Proceedings of a conference at the NASA Lewis Research Center in Cleveland Ohio, 12–14 August 1997.Google Scholar
  12. Dowe, P. (1992a). Process causality and asymmetry. Erkenntnis, 37, 179–196.Google Scholar
  13. Dowe, P. (1992b). Wesley Salmon’s process theory of causality and the conserved quantity theory. Philosophy of Science, 59, 195–216.Google Scholar
  14. Dowe, P. (1996). Backwards causation and the direction of causal processes. Mind, 105(418), 227–248.Google Scholar
  15. Dowe, P. (1997). A defense of backwards in time causation models in quantum mechanics. Synthese, 112(2), 233–246.Google Scholar
  16. Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ehring, D. (1982). Causal asymmetry. The Journal of Philosophy, 79(12), 176–774.Google Scholar
  18. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.Google Scholar
  19. Elby, A. (1992). Should we explain the EPR correlations causally? Philosophy of Science, 59(1), 16–25.Google Scholar
  20. Field, H. (2003). Causation in a physical world. In: M. Louz & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp.435–460). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fine, A. (1982a). Antinomies of entanglement: The puzzling case of the tangled statistics. The Journal of Philosophy, 79(12), 733–747.Google Scholar
  22. Fine, A. (1982b). Some local models for correlation experiments. Synthese, 50(2), 279–294.Google Scholar
  23. Good, I. J. (1961a). A causal calculus (I). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 11(44), 305–318.Google Scholar
  24. Good, I. J. (1961b). A causal calculus (II). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 12(45), 43–51.Google Scholar
  25. Hausman, D. M. (1998). Causal asymmetries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hausman, D. M, & Woodward, J. (1999). Independence, invariance, and the causal markov condition. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50(4), 521–583.Google Scholar
  27. Healey, R. (1992a). Causation, robustness, and EPR. Philosophy of Science, 59(2), 282–292.Google Scholar
  28. Healey, R. (1992b). Chasing quantum causes: How wild is the goose? Philosophical Topics 20(1), 181–204.Google Scholar
  29. Hofer-Szabó G., Rédei, M., & Szabó, L. E. (2000). Common cause completability of classical and quantum probability spaces. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 39(3), 913–919.Google Scholar
  30. Hofer-Szabó, G., Rédei, M., & Szabó, L. E. (2002). Common-causes are not common common-causes. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 623–636.Google Scholar
  31. Kistler, M. (1999). Causalité et Lois de la Nature. Vrin, Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13(4), 455–476.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, D. (1986a). Postscripts to causation. In Philosophical papers, Vol. II (pp. 172–213). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lewis, D. (1986b). Postscripts to counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. In Philosophical papers, Vol. II (pp. 52–66). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McDermott, M. (1999). Counterfactuals and access points. Mind, 108(430), 291–334.Google Scholar
  36. Menzies, P. (1996). Probabilistic causation and the pre-emption problem. Mind, 105(417), 85–118.Google Scholar
  37. Papineau, D. (1985a). Causal asymmetry. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 36(3), 273–289.Google Scholar
  38. Papineau, D. (1985b). Probabilities and causes. Journal of Philosophy, 82(2), 57–73.Google Scholar
  39. Papineau, D. (1988). Response to Ehring’s ‘Papineau on causal asymmetry’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39(4), 521–525.Google Scholar
  40. Papineau, D. (1989). Pure, mixed, and spurious probabilities and their significance for a reductionist theory of causation. In: P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 13, 307–348.Google Scholar
  41. Papineau, D. (1993). Can we reduce causal direction to probabilities? In D. Hull, M. Forbes, & K. Okruhlik (Eds.), Proceedings of the biennial meetings of the philosophy of science association 1992 (pp. 238–252). East Lansing MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  42. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pearle, P. M. (1970). Hidden-variable example based upon data rejection. Physical Review D, 2(8), 1418–1425.Google Scholar
  44. Price, H. (1984). The philosophy and physics of affecting the past. Synthese, 61, 299–324.Google Scholar
  45. Price, H. (1992). Agency and causal asymmetry. Mind, 101(403), 501–520.Google Scholar
  46. Price, H. (1993). The direction of causation: Ramsey’s ultimate contingency. In D. Hull, M. Forbes, & K. Okruhlik (Eds.), Proceedings of the biennial meetings of the philosophy of science association 1992 (pp. 253–267). East Lansing MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  47. Price, H. (1994). A neglected route to realism about quantum mechanics. Mind, 103(411), 303–336.Google Scholar
  48. Price, H. (1995). Locality, independence and the pro-liberty bell. 10th International symposium of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, Florence, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9602020Google Scholar
  49. Price, H. (1996a). Backward causation and the direction of causal processes: Reply to Dowe. Mind, 105(419), 467–474.Google Scholar
  50. Price, H. (1996b). Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rédei, M. (2002). Reichenbach’s common cause principle and quantum correlations. In J. Butterfield & T. Placek (Eds.), Modality, probability and Bell’s theorems (pp. 259–270). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Redhead, M. (1986). Relativity and quantum mechanics—conflict or peaceful coexistence? In D. M. Greenberger (Ed.), New techniques and ideas in quantum measurement theory (pp. 14–20). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  53. Redhead, M. (1987). Incompleteness, nonlocality and realism: A prolegomenon to the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  54. Redhead, M. (1989). Nonfactorizability, stochastic causality and passion-at-a-distance. In J. T. Cushing & E. McMullin (Eds.), Philosophical consequences of quantum theory: Reflections on Bell’s theorem (pp. 145–153). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  55. Redhead, M. (1990). The nature of reality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 40(4) 429–441.Google Scholar
  56. Reichenbach, H. (1956). The direction of time. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  57. Salmon, W. C. (1980). Probabilistic causality. In Causality and explanation, 1998 Ed (pp. 208–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Originally published in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 61, 50–74.Google Scholar
  58. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction and search. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Steel, D. (MS). Empirical analysis and causal pluralism; or, what in the world is causal structure?Google Scholar
  60. Suárez, M. (2004). Causal processes and propensities in quantum mechanics. Theoria, 19(3), 271–300.Google Scholar
  61. Suppes, P. (1970). A probabilistic theory of causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  62. Szabó, L. E. (2000). Attempt to resolve the EPR-Bell paradox via Reichenbach’s concept of common cause. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 39(3), 901–911.Google Scholar
  63. Tooley, M. (1987). Causation: A realist approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tooley, M. (1990). Causation: Reductionism versus realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(Supplement), 215–236.Google Scholar
  65. Tooley, M. (1993). Introduction. In: E. Sosa & M. Tooley (Eds.), Causation (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. van Fraassen, B. (1982). The Charybdis of realism: Epistemological implications of Bell’s inequality. Synthese, 52, 25–38.Google Scholar
  67. Wigner, E. P. (1970). On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities. American Journal of Physics, 38(8), 1005–1009.Google Scholar
  68. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Time, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations