Abstract
The principle of the common cause claims that if an improbable coincidence has occurred, there must exist a common cause. This is generally taken to mean that positive correlations between non-causally related events should disappear when conditioning on the action of some underlying common cause. The extended interpretation of the principle, by contrast, urges that common causes should be called for in order to explain positive deviations between the estimated correlation of two events and the expected value of their correlation. The aim of this paper is to provide the extended reading of the principle with a general probabilistic model, capturing the simultaneous action of a system of multiple common causes. To this end, two distinct models are elaborated, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for their existence are determined.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The existence of common causes in general or quantum probability spaces has been investigated by Gyenis and Rédei (2014, 2016), Kitajima (2008), and Kitajima and Rédei (2015). Whether, and under what conditions, the generalised models here proposed exist in such spaces will be left as an open question.
Or, more exactly, any finite or countable number: in fact, no uncountable set of disjoint and non-zero probability events can exist given a countably additive probability measure (Wroński and Marczyk 2010). Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
For the existence of HR-RCCS of countably infinite size, see Marczyk and Wroński (2015).
References
Arntzenius, F. (1992). The common cause principle. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association. Volume Two: Symposia and invited papers (pp. 227–237).
Cartwright, N. (1979). Causal laws and effective strategies. Noûs, 13, 419–437.
Cartwright, N. (1988). How to tell a common cause: Generalizations of the common cause criterion. In J. H. Fetzer (Ed.), Probability and causality (pp. 181–188). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Cartwright, N. (1999). Causal diversity and the Markov condition. Synthese, 121, 3–27.
Eells, E. (1991). Probabilistic causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Good, I. J. (1961). A causal calculus I. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 11, 305–318.
Graßhoff, G., Portmann, S., & Wuthrich, A. (2006). Minimal assumption derivation of a Bell-type inequality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 663–680.
Gyenis, Z., & Rédei, M. (2014). Atomicity and causal completeness. Erkenntnis, 79, 437–451.
Gyenis, Z., & Rédei, M. (2016). Common cause completability of non-classical probability spaces. Belgrade Philosophical Annual, 29, 15–32.
Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.
Hofer-Szabó, G., & Rédei, M. (2004). Reichenbachian common cause systems. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 43, 1819–1826.
Hofer-Szabó, G., & Rédei, M. (2006). Reichenbachian common cause systems of arbitrary finite size exist. Foundations of Physics, 36, 745–756.
Hofer-Szabó, G., Rédei, M., & Szabó, L. E. (2013). The principle of the common cause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitajima, Y. (2008). Reichenbach’s common cause in an atomless and complete orthomodular lattice. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 47, 511–519.
Kitajima, Y., & Rédei, M. (2015). Characterizing common cause closedness of quantum probability theories. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 52(B), 234–241.
Marczyk, M., & Wroński, L. (2015). Completion of the causal completability problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66, 307–326.
Mazzola, C. (2012). Reichenbachian common cause systems revisited. Foundations of Physics, 42, 512–523.
Mazzola, C. (2013). Correlations, deviations and expectations: The extended principle of the common cause. Synthese, 190, 2853–2866.
Mazzola, C., & Evans, P. (2017). Do Reichenbachian common cause systems of arbitrary finite size exist? Foundations of Physics, 47, 1543–1558.
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. San Mateo: Morgan Kauffman.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1956). The direction of time. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Salmon, W. C. (1971). Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Skyrms, B. (1980). Causal necessity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sober, E. (1984). Common cause explanation. Philosophy of Science, 5, 212–241.
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2001). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stergiou, C. (2015). Explaining correlations by partitions. Foundations of Physics, 45, 1599–1612.
Suppes, P. (1970). A probabilistic theory of causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Suppes, P., & Zaniotti, M. (1981). When are probabilistic explanations possible? Synthese, 48, 191–199.
van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
van Fraassen, B. (1982). Rational belief and the common cause principle. In R. McLaughlin (Ed.), What? Where? When? Why? (pp. 193–209). Dordrecht: Reidel.
van Fraassen, B. (1991). Quantum mechanics: An empiricist view. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Williamson, J. (2005). Bayesian nets and causality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wroński, L., & Marczyk, M. (2010). Only countable Reichenbachian common cause systems exist. Foundations of Physics, 40, 1155–1160.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to two anonymous referees for their challenging but constructive feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Proof of Lemma 5
Appendix: Proof of Lemma 5
Let \((\varOmega , p)\) be a classical probability space with \(\sigma \)-algebra of random events \(\varOmega \) and probability measure p. Moreover, let \(A,B\in \varOmega \) satisfy (17) and (62).
To start with, let us observe that (43) is in fact a system of \(n-1\) equations, namely one for each value of \(i = 1, \ldots , n-1\). Therefore, (39)–(43) jointly comprise a system of \(4 + (n - 1) = n + 3\) equations in 4n variables. This means that each HR-admissible set for \(\delta \left( {A},{B}\right) \) is determined by a set of \(4n - (n+3) = 3n- 3\) parameters, for every \(n\ge 2\). To establish the existence of such set, we accordingly need to prove that such parameters exist. To this purpose, let numbers a, b and \(\varepsilon \) be understood as per (44)–(46). Proof will proceed by induction on n.
Let us begin by assuming \(n = 2\) as our inductive basis. This has the effect of transforming (39)–(43), respectively, into:
Since a, b and \(\varepsilon \) are known by hypothesis, choosing numbers \(c_{1}\), \(a_{1}\) and \(b_{1}\) will therefore suffice to fix the values of all \(4n = 8\) variables in the system. In particular, (89)–(92) immediately produce:
while on the other hand (17) directly requires that
as it would be easy to verify. Taken together this ensures that, as \(c_{1}\) is taken sufficiently close to zero:
while (62) and (17) imply that
To determine the remaining numbers, we further need to set \(a_{1}\) and \(b_{1}\). In this case, our choice will depend on the value of \(\varepsilon \), as follows:
Either option is allowed by (98), and either will ensure that
as it would be straightforward to check with the aid of (43), (17) and (62). Thanks to Lemma 3, this is enough to establish that some set \(\left\{ {a_{i}, b_{i}, c_{i}, d_{i}}\right\} _{{i = 1}}^{{n}}\) of quasi-admissible numbers exist for \(\delta \left( {A},{B}\right) \) if \(n = 2\). To further show that such set is HR-admissible for \(\delta \left( {A},{B}\right) \), we only need to observe that (34) can be obtained from both (102) and (103), owing to (28)–(30).
Let us now assume, as our inductive hypothesis, that some set \(\left\{ {a_{i}, b_{i}, c_{i}, d_{i}}\right\} _{{i = 1}}^{{m}}\) is HR-admissible for \(\delta \left( {A},{B}\right) \), where \(n = m > 2\). To prove that a HR-admissible set for \(\delta \left( {A},{B}\right) \) also exists if \(n = m +1\), let us consider the set
and let us choose numbers \(a'_{m} , b'_{m}, c'_{m-1}, c'_{m} \) such that:
of \(3n-3\) parameters will then suffice to determine \(4(m+1)\) numbers:
Because numbers \(\left\{ {a_{j}, b_{j}, c_{j}, d_{j}, a_{m-1}, b_{m-1}, c'_{m-1}, d_{m-1}, a'_{m}, b'_{m}, c'_{m},}\right\} _{{j = 1}}^{{m-1}}\) satisfy conditions (31)–(33) and (34) by hypothesis, all we need to show is that said constraints are also satisfied by the remaining numbers \(\left\{ {d'_{m}, a_{m+1}, b_{m+1}, c_{m+1}, d_{m+1}}\right\} _{{}}^{{}}\). To this purpose, let us first notice that (32) must be true of \(d'_{m}\) by virtue of (43) and (105)–(106). Next, thanks to (39)–(42), it will be sufficient to suppose that
to obtain
which we already know, by our inductive hypothesis, to satisfy (31)–(33). Moreover, (105) and (106), along with the inductive assumption whereby
ensures that
which together with our inductive hypothesis suffices to establish (34). Due to Lemma 3 and Definition 8, the set of \(4(m+1)\) numbers so determined is therefore HR-admissible for \(\delta \left( {A},{B}\right) \). Lemma 5 is thus demonstrated by induction.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mazzola, C. Generalised Reichenbachian common cause systems. Synthese 196, 4185–4209 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1650-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1650-2