From Metaphysics to Physics and Back: the Example of Causation
The notion of causation seems especially apt for being a crossroad between physics and metaphysics, in view of a revived interest both for causal notions in general philosophical analysis in general and causal views of quantum mechanics. As far as the latter is concerned, interesting sort of questions naturally arise when the relation between nonlocality and causation is taken into account. Also on the basis of recent classifications of theories of causation, in the paper I first will draw some general remarks mainly of a methodological character, and I will then review the conditions under which nonlocality can be shown to seriously challenge the no-action-at-a-distance requirement that special-relativistic theories are usually thought to embody. In this connection I will turn then to recent work on causal models of EPR. Over and above the specific merits of these models – mainly concerning the refutation of ‘impossibility claims’ about causal models of quantum correlations – a question arises: what sort of conceptual advantage do we obtain in producing causal models for such correlations in absence of a deeper understanding of the overall structure of the theory? I will argue that the only way toward such an understanding may be to cast in advance the problems in a clear and well-defined interpretational framework – which means primarily to specify the ontology that quantum theory is supposed to be about – and after to wonder whether problems that seemed worth pursuing still are so in the framework.
As a consequence, in the last two sections I will refer to GRW and Bohmian formulations and
quantum mechanics, in order to emphasize essentially two points: (i) the discussion on causality in quantum mechanics should be cast by using the conceptual resources allowed by ontologically unambiguous interpretations of quantum mechanics and not on the background of its ‘orthodox’ – hence vague – formulation; (ii) the interpretation-dependence of causal reasoning in quantum mechanics implies different approaches to causality in (the different versions of) GRW and Bohmian formulations.
KeywordsCovariance Defend Clarification Plague
- Aharonov, Y. and Albert, D. (1980), States and observables in relativistic quantum field theories. Physical Review D, 3316–3324.Google Scholar
- Aharonov, Y. and Albert, D. (1981), Can we make sense out of the measurement process in relativistic quantum mechanics? Physical Review D 359–370.Google Scholar
- Aharonov, Y. and Albert, D. (1984), Is the usual notion of time evolution adequate for quantum-mechanical systems? II. Relativistic considerations, Physical Review D 228–234.Google Scholar
- Albert, D. (1992), Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Allori, V., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N. (2006), On the common structure of Bohmian mechanics and the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory, http://arxiv.org/quant-ph/0603027. Accessed Apr 2008.
- Bell, J. S. (1987), Are there quantum jumps? In C. W. Kilmister (ed.), Schrödinger. Centenary of a Polymath, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–52 (reprinted as chapter 22 of Bell 2004).Google Scholar
- Bell, J. S. (2004), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
- Berkovitz, J. (2000a), The nature of causality in quantum mechanics, Theoria 15, 87–122.Google Scholar
- Berkovitz, J. (2000b), The many principles of the common cause, Reports on Philosophy 20, 51–83.Google Scholar
- Dickson, M. (1996), Is the Bohm theory local? In J. Cushing, A. Fine and S. Goldstein (eds.), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 321–330.Google Scholar
- Dickson, M. (1998), Quantum Chance and Non-Locality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.Google Scholar
- Eberhard, P. (1978), Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality, Nuovo Cimento 46B, 392–419.Google Scholar
- Fleming, G. N. (1989), Lorentz invariant state reduction and localization, In A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.), PSA1988 Vol. 2, E. Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 112–126.Google Scholar
- Fleming, G. N. (1996), Just how radical is hyperplane dependence? In R.K. Clifton (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar
- Hellwig, K. E. and Kraus, K. (1970), Formal description of measurements in local quantum field theory, Physical Review D1, 566–571.Google Scholar
- Hitchcock, C. (2007), How to be a causal pluralist, In P. Machamer and G. Wolters (eds.), Thinking About Causes: From Greek Philosophy to Modern Physics, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 200–221.Google Scholar
- Maudlin, T. (1996), Space-time and the quantum world, In J. Cushing, A. Fine and S. Goldstein (eds.), Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 285–307.Google Scholar
- Suarez, M. (2007), Causal inference in quantum mechanics: a reassessment, In F. Russo, and J. Williamson (eds.), Causality and Probability in the Sciences, London: College, pp. 65–106.Google Scholar
- Williamson, J. (2007), Causality, In D. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 14, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 89–120.Google Scholar