The principle of cause and effect is deeply rooted in human experience, so much so that it is routinely and tacitly assumed throughout science, even by scientists working in areas where time symmetry is theoretically ingrained, as it is in both classical and quantum physics. Experiments are said to cause their results, not the other way around. In this informal paper, we argue that this assumption should be replaced with a more general notion of mutual influence — bi‐directional relations or constraints on joint values of two or more variables. From an analysis based on quantum entropy, it is proposed that quantum measurement is a unitary three‐interaction, with no collapse, no fundamental randomness, and no barrier to backward influence.Experimental results suggesting retrocausality are seen frequently in well‐controlled laboratory experiments in parapsychology and elsewhere, especially where a random element is included. Certain common characteristics of these experiments give the appearance of contradicting well‐established physical laws, thus providing an opportunity for deeper understanding and important clues that must be addressed by any explanatory theory. We discuss how retrocausal effects and other anomalous phenomena can be explained without major injury to existing physical theory. A modified quantum formalism can give new insights into the nature of quantum measurement, randomness, entanglement, causality, and time.
The principle of cause and effect is deeply rooted in human experience, so much so that it is routinely and tacitly assumed throughout science, even by scientists working in areas where time symmetry is theoretically ingrained, as it is in both classical and quantum physics. Experiments are said to cause their results, not the other way around. In this informal paper, we argue that this assumption should be replaced with a more general notion of mutual influence — bi‐directional relations or constraints on joint values of two or more variables. From an analysis based on quantum entropy, it is proposed that quantum measurement is a unitary three‐interaction, with no collapse, no fundamental randomness, and no barrier to backward influence.Experimental results suggesting retrocausality are seen frequently in well‐controlled laboratory experiments in parapsychology and elsewhere, especially where a random element is included. Certain common characteristics of these experiments give the appearance of contradicting well‐established physical laws, thus providing an opportunity for deeper understanding and important clues that must be addressed by any explanatory theory. We discuss how retrocausal effects and other anomalous phenomena can be explained without major injury to existing physical theory. A modified quantum formalism can give new insights into the nature of quantum measurement, randomness, entanglement, causality, and time.
The possibility of retrocausation has been considered to explain the occurrence of anomalous phenomena in which the ostensible effects are preceded by their causes. A scrutiny of both experimental methodology and the experimental data is called for. A review of experimental data reveals the existence of such effects to be a serious possibility. The experimental methodology entails some conceptual difficulties, these depending on the underlying assumptions about the effects. A major point is an ambiguity between anomalous acquisition of information and retrocausation in exerted influences.A unifying theory has been proposed, based upon the fundamental randomness of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical randomness may be regarded as a tenacious phenomenon, that apparently is only resolved by the human observer of the random variable in question. This has led to the “observational theory” of anomalous phenomena, which is based upon the assumption that the preference of a motivated observer is able to interact with the extant indefinite random variable that is being observed. This observational theory has led to a novel prediction, which has been corroborated in experiments. Moreover, different classes of anomalous phenomena can be explained by the same basic mechanism. This foregoes retroactive causation, but, instead, requires that macroscopic physical variables remain in a state of indefinite reality and thus remain influenceable by mental efforts until these are observed. More work is needed to discover the relevant psychological and neurophysiological variables involved in effective motivated observation. Besides these practicalities, the fundamentals still have some interesting loose ends.
It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.
I have claimed that it is profitable to distinguish three key questions about causation. The first question, what are causal processes and interactions? , was addressed in Chapter 5. The second question, what is the connection between causes and effects? , was addressed in Chapter 7.The third question, what makes a cause different from an effect? , has not been addressed, and it is to that task that we turn in the present chapter. The question of the directionality and asymmetry of causation has long been an important ingredient in philosophical discussions of causation, although perhaps Reichenbach (1991) was the first to truly appreciate the significance of the question. It is certainly an aspect of folk intuitions. Many philosophers have held that an adequate analysis of causality should provide an explanation or account of causal asymmetry. On the other hand, it is precisely this aspect of causation that is the most common target for elimination from empirical accounts. This chapter looks at the ability of 'process' theories of causality to provide such an account, granting certain constraints. The major constraint, or premise, in the following analysis is the assumption that quantum mechanics reveals the presence of backwards-in-time causation. Thus, in the first instance, the argument presented here will not convince those who hold that there can be no backwards causation. However, I derive an empirical prediction, which, if confirmed, would give those sceptical about backwards causation reason to think again. The chapter begins with an analysis of some of the formal properties of causation. This is followed by a nontechnical presentation of the famous difficulties associated with Bell phenomena in quantum mechanics, and the backwards-in-time solution to those difficulties.
Explaining observations in terms of cause-and-effect (causal) relations is central to empirical science. However, in his seminal 1964 work [1], John Bell showed that the correlations between entangled quantum systems cannot be explained in terms of, possibly hidden, cause and effect relations. After four decades of experimental effort, Bell's prediction has recently been confirmed in an unambiguous way by a series of loophole-free Bell-test experiments [2-4]. These experiments, however, cannot reveal where exactly quantum mechanics breaks with our classical notion of cause and effect. Specifically, Bell's theorem is based on the central assumptions of realism and local causality. Realism posits that physical systems have real, objective properties, independent of whether we observe them or not, and local causality assumes that causal influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
The classical physical theories that prevailed in science from the time of Isaac Newton until the dawn of the twentieth century were empirically based on human experience and made predictions about our mental experiences, yet excluded from the dynamics all mental properties. But how can one rationally get mental things out if no mental elements are put in? The key step in the creation of quantum mechanics during 1925 by Heisenberg and his colleagues was to recognize and emphasize the essential dynamical role of mental properties in the creation of our mental empirical findings. This basic feature of quantum mechanics was cast into rigorous mathematical form by John von Neumann, and was made a central feature of contemporary relativistic quantum field theory by the work of Tomonaga and Schwinger. That theory is causally strictly forward in time. But it is explained here how it can nevertheless accommodate the seeming backward-in-time causal effects reported by D.J. Bem, and many others, by means of a slight biasing of the famous Born Rule. The purpose of this communication is to explain how those reported retrocausal findings can be explained by a strictly forward-in-time and nearly orthodox causal dynamics that, however, permits the Born Rule to be slightly biased under certain conditions. A feasible experiment is proposed that, if it gives the outcomes predicted by the proposed theory, will provide evidence in favor of this causally forward-in-time and nearly orthodox explanation of the reported retrocausal effects.
Reichenbach's principle asserts that if two observed variables are found to be correlated, then there should be a causal explanation of these correlations.Furthermore, if the explanation is in terms of a common cause, then the conditional probability distribution over the variables given the complete common cause should factorize.The principle is generalized by the formalism of causal models, in which the causal relationships among variables constrain the form of their joint probability distribution.In the quantum case, however, the observed correlations in Bell experiments cannot be explained in the manner Reichenbach's principle would seem to demand.Motivated by this, we introduce a quantum counterpart to the principle.We demonstrate that under the assumption that quantum dynamics is fundamentally unitary, if a quantum channel with input A and outputs B and C is compatible with A being a complete common cause of B and C, then it must factorize in a particular way.Finally, we show how to generalize our quantum version of Reichenbach's principle to a formalism for quantum causal models and provide examples of how the formalism works.