Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 196, Issue 9, pp 3711–3722 | Cite as

Do the EPR correlations pose a problem for causal decision theory?

  • Adam Koberinski
  • Lucas DunlapEmail author
  • William L. Harper
Article

Abstract

We argue that causal decision theory (CDT) is no worse off than evidential decision theory (EDT) in handling entanglement, regardless of one’s preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics. In recent works, Ahmed (Evidence, decision, and causality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014) and Ahmed and Caulton (Synthese, 191(18): 4315–4352, 2014) have claimed the opposite; we argue that they are mistaken. Bell-type experiments are not instances of Newcomb problems, so CDT and EDT do not diverge in their recommendations. We highlight the fact that a Causal Decision Theorist should take all lawlike correlations into account, including potentially acausal entanglement correlations. This paper also provides a brief introduction to CDT with a motivating “small” Newcomb problem. The main point of our argument is that quantum theory does not provide grounds for favouring EDT over CDT.

Keywords

Causal decision theory Quantum mechanics EPR correlations Newcomb’s Problem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the philosophy of physics reading group at Western University for helpful feedback on early drafts, Wayne Myrvold for helpful discussions, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments, which helped to strengthen the argument of this paper. This research was supported by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Doctoral CGS Award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Adam Koberinski).

References

  1. Ahmed, A. (2014). Evidence, decision, and causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed, A., & Caulton, A. (2014). Causal decision theory and EPR correlations. Synthese, 191(18), 4315–4352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, J. S. (1966). On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavalcanti, E. G. (2010). Causation, decision theory, and Bell’s theorem: A quantum analogue of the Newcomb problem. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(3), 569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cusbert, J. (2017). Backwards causation and the chancy past. Mind, fzw053.Google Scholar
  7. Ghirardi, G. (2010). Does quantum nonlocality irremediably conflict with special relativity? Foundations of Physics, 40(9), 1379–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibbard, A., & Harper, W. L. (1978). Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In C. Hooker, J. Leach, & E. McClennen (Eds.), Foundations and applications of decision theory (pp. 125–162). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Volume 13 of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  9. Giustina, M., Versteegh, M. A., Wengerowsky, S., Handsteiner, J., Hochrainer, A., Phelan, K., et al. (2015). Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons. Physical Review Letters, 115(25), 250401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harper, W. L. (1993). Causal and evidential expectations in strategic settings. Philosophical Topics, 21(1), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kochen, S. B., & Specker, E. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1981). Causal decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Myrvold, W. (2016). Lessons of Bell’s theorem: Nonlocality, yes; action at a distance, not necessarily. In M. Bell & S. Gao (Eds.), Quantum nonlocality and reality: 50 years of Bell’s theorem (pp. 238–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nozick, R. (1969). Newcomb’s problem and two principles of choice. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 114–146). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Redhead, M. (1987). Incompleteness, nonlocality, and realism: A prolegomenon to the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Shimony, A. (1984). Controllable and uncontrollable non-locality. In S. Kamefuchi (Ed.), Foundations of quantum mechanics in light of new technology (pp. 225–230). Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan.Google Scholar
  17. Skyrms, B. (2013). The core theory of subjunctive conditionals. Synthese, 190, 923–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stalnaker, R. (1972 [1980]). Letter to David Lewis. In W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, and G. A. Pearce (Eds.), Ifs, Volume 15 of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science (pp. 151–152). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. Weirich, P. (2016). Causal decision theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/decision-causal/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotman Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations