## Abstract

There is widespread belief in a tension between quantum theory and special relativity, motivated by the idea that quantum theory violates J. S. Bell’s criterion of local causality, which is meant to implement the causal structure of relativistic space-time. This paper argues that if one takes the essential intuitive idea behind local causality to be that probabilities in a locally causal theory depend only on what occurs in the backward light cone and if one regards objective probability as what imposes constraints on rational credence along the lines of David Lewis’ *Principal Principle*, then one arrives at the view that whether or not Bell’s criterion holds is irrelevant for whether or not local causality holds. The assumptions on which this argument rests are highlighted, and those that may seem controversial are motivated.

## Keywords

Quantum theory Special relativity Causality Probability Principal Principle## Notes

### Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Andreas Bartels, Jeremy Butterfield, Michael Esfeld, Thorben Petersen, two anonymous referees, and the members of the Göttinger Philosophisches Reflektorium for useful comments on earlier versions. I am grateful to discussions with conference audiences in Hanover and Munich, where the material developed here was presented.

## References

- Albert, D. Z., & Galchen, R. (2009). Was Einstein wrong?: A quantum threat to special relativity.
*Scientific American*,*2009*, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bell, J. S. (2004).
*Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics*(2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Butterfield, J. N. (2007). Stochastic Einstein locality revisited.
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*,*58*, 805–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cavalcanti, E. G. (2010). Causation, decision theory, and Bell’s theorem: a quantum analogue of the Newcomb problem.
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*,*61*, 359–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cusbert, J. (2013). The Arrow of Chance, PhD thesis, submitted at The Australian National University.Google Scholar
- Eberhard, P. H. (1978). Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality.
*Nuovo Cimento*,*46B*, 392–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Friederich, S. (2011). How to spell out the epistemic conception of quantum states.
*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics*,*42*, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Friederich, S. (2013). In defence of non-ontic accounts of quantum states.
*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics*,*44*, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Friederich, S. (2014).
*Interpreting Quantum Theory: A Therapeutic Approach*. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar - Gell-Mann, M., Goldberger, M. L., & Thirring, W. E. (1954). Use of causality conditions in quantum theory.
*Physical Review*,*95*, 1612–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1980). A general argument against superluminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process.
*Lettere al Nuovo Cimento*,*27*, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gisin, N. (2009). Quantum nonlocality: How does nature do it?
*Science*,*326*, 1357–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Tausk, D. V., & Zanghi, N. (2011). Bell’s theorem.
*Scholarpedia*,*6*, 8378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Haag, R. (1993).
*Local Quantum Physics*(corrected ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Hall, N. (1994). Correcting the guide to objective chance.
*Mind*,*103*, 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hall, N. (2004). Two mistakes about credence and chance.
*Australasian Journal of Philosophy*,*82*, 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Healey, R. A. (2012). Quantum theory: a pragmatist approach.
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*,*63*, 729–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Healey, R. A. (2014). Causality and chance in relativistic quantum field theories,
*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics*. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.03.002. - Jarrett, J. (1984). On the physical significance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments.
*Nous*,*18*, 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lewis, D. (1986 [1980]). A subjectivists’s guide to objective chance. In
*Philosophical papers*, (Vol. II, pp. 83–132). New York: Oxford University Press (originally published from Studies in inductive logic and probability, Vol. II by, R. C. Jeffrey Ed., Berkeley: University of California Press.)Google Scholar - Maudlin, T. (2011).
*Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics*(3rd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar - Myrvold, W. C. (2003). Relativistic quantum becoming.
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*,*54*, 475–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Näger, P. (2013). A stronger Bell argument for quantum non-locality, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9932/
- Norsen, T. (2009). Local causality and completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett.
*Foundations of Physics*,*39*, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Norsen, T. (2011). Bell’s concept of local causality.
*American Journal of Physics*,*79*, 1261–1275.Google Scholar - Price, H. (1996).
*Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time*. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Seevinck, M. P. (2010). Can quantum theory and special relativity peacefully coexist?, available at arXiv:1010.3714
- Seevinck, M. P., & Uffink, J. (2011). Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell’s condition of local causality mathematically ‘sharp and clean’. In D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, Th Uebel, & M. Weber (Eds.),
*Explanation, Rediction and Confirmation. New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered*(pp. 425–450). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shimony, A. (1978). Metaphysical problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
*International Philosophical Quarterly*,*18*, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shimony, A. (2004). Bell’s theorem. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
*The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy*(Winter 2012 Edition) plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/Bell-theorem.