Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Common common causes

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Published May 16, 2013• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Common causes and common common causes Proposition 3.9 tells us that every common cause incomplete classical probability space can be strongly common cause extended with respect to any (finite) set of correlations; Proposition 4.19 states that every classical probability space is even common cause completable. Note that what these propositions say is not that for a set of correlations between ( A i , B i )( i = 1, 2 … n ) there exists a single, common common cause C in the extension (or completion) for the whole set of correlations; in fact, the common causes C i constructed explicitly in the proof of Proposition 3.9 are all different: C i ≠ C j ( i ≠ j ). This observation leads to the following question. Let ( A i , B i )( i = 1, … n )be a finite set of pairs of events in( X, S, p )that are correlated [ Corr p ( A i , B i ) ＞ 0 for every i ]. We say that C is a common common cause of these correlations if C is a Reichenbachian common cause of the correlated pair ( A i , B i )for every i . Does every set of correlations in a classical probability space have a common common cause? In view of the generality of this question one may surmise that the answer to it is “yes”; that is to say, one may conjecture that given any two correlations there can always exist a Reichenbachian common cause which is a common cause for both correlations, since, one may reason, we just have to refine our picture of the world by adding more and more events to the original event structure in a consistent manner, and finally we shall find a single common cause that explains both correlations.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139094344.006

Related papers

Reichenbachian common cause systems

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Common cause partitions Confronted with a common cause incomplete probability space ( X, S, p )in which a direct causal influence between the correlated events is excluded, one can have in principle two strategies aiming at saving the Common Cause Principle: one may try to argue that S is not “rich enough” to contain a common cause, but there might exist a larger probability space ( X ′, S ′, p ′) that already contains a common cause of the correlation. As we have seen in Chapter 3 this strategy always works in the sense that it is always possible to enlarge ( X, S, p ) in such a way that the enlarged probability space already contains an event C that satisfies the Reichenbachian conditions. Another natural idea is to suspect that the correlation between A and B is not due to a single factor but may be the cumulative result of a (possibly large) number of different “partial common causes,” none of which can in and by itself yield a complete common-cause-type explanation of the correlation, all of which, taken together, can however account for the entire correlation. In this chapter we elaborate this idea by formulating precisely a notion of the Reichenbachian Common Cause System (RCCS) and prove propositions on the existence and features of such systems. As we have seen in Chapter 2, if the events A, B, C satisfy the Reichenbachian conditions (2.5)–(2.8) then there is a positive correlation between A and B (Proposition 2.5).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

Common-Causes are Not Common Common-Causes

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

A condition is formulated in terms of the probabilities of two pairs of correlated events in a classical probability space which is necessary for the two correlations to have a single (Reichenbachian) common-cause and it is shown that there exists pairs of correlated events, probabilities of which violate the necessary condition. It is concluded that different correlations do not in general have a common common-cause. It is also shown that this conclusion remains valid even if one weakens slightly Reichenbach's definition of common-cause. The significance of the difference between common-causes and common common-causes is emphasized from the perspective of Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle.

Philosophy of Science•Dec 1, 2002•29 citations

Common cause extendability of probability spaces

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Common cause (in)completeness and extendability In principle, there are two ways to interpret Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle in general, each determined by how one views the status of the Principle with respect to the conditions of its validity: the Principle can be viewed as a falsifiable or a nonfalsifiable principle. In the falsificationist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle is a claim that can possibly and conclusively be shown not to hold for some empirically given events and their correlations; in the nonfalsificationaist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle cannot be falsified conclusively – whatever the actual circumstances. Is the Common Cause Principle falsifiable or nonfalsifiable? We shall argue that the Common Cause Principle, as formulated in Chapter 2, is not falsifiable conclusively, but the argument cannot be trivial, since the Common Cause Principle is certainly not trivially nonfalsifiable: it is not true that every classical probability space ( X, S, p ) is provably common cause complete in the sense that for any A, B ϵ S that are correlated in p there exists a C ϵ S that is a ( proper ) common cause of the correlation between A and B . There exists common cause incomplete probability spaces (for instance the probability space described in Figure 3.1 is common cause incomplete). This makes the following definition nonempty: Definition 3.1 The probability space ( X, S, p )is common cause incomplete if there exist events A, B ϵ S such that Corr p ( A, B ) ＞ 0 but S does not contain a common cause of the correlation Corr p ( A, B ).

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

Introduction and overview

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

No correlation without causation. This is, in its most compact and general formulation, the essence of what has become Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle . More explicitly, the Common Cause Principle says that every correlation is either due to a direct causal effect linking the correlated entities, or is brought about by a third factor, a so-called Reichenbachian common cause that stands in a well-defined probabilistic relation to the correlated events, a relation that explains the correlation in the sense of entailing it. The Common Cause Principle is a nontrivial metaphysical claim about the causal structure of the World and entails that all correlations can (hence, should) be explained causally either by pointing at a causal connection between the correlated entities or by displaying a common cause of the correlation. Thus, the Common Cause Principle licenses one to infer causal connections from probabilistic relations; at the same time the principle does not address whether the causal connection holds between the correlated entities or between the common cause and the elements in the correlation. While the technically explicit notion of common cause of a probabilistic correlation within the framework of classical Kolmogorovian probability theory is due to Reichenbach (1956), the Common Cause Principle was articulated explicitly only later, especially in the works by W. Salmon (see the “Notes and bibliographic remarks” to Chapter 2). The chief aim of this book is to investigate the Common Cause Principle; in particular, the problem of to what extent the Common Cause Principle can explain probabilistic correlations.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and EPR correlations

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 16, 2013•0 citations

On Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and Reichenbach's Notion of Common Cause

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Miklós Rédei, László E. Szabó

It is shown that, given any finite set of pairs of random events in a Boolean algebra which are correlated with respect to a fixed probability measure on the algebra, the algebra can be extended in such a way that the extension contains events that can be regarded as common causes of the correlations in the sense of Reichenbach's definition of common cause. It is shown, further, that, given any quantum probability space and any set of commuting events in it which are correlated with respect to a fixed quantum state, the quantum probability space can be extended in such a way that the extension contains common causes of all the selected correlations, where common cause is again taken in the sense of Reichenbachs definition. It is argued that these results very strongly restrict the possible ways of disproving Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle.

arXiv:quant-ph/9805066•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1999•105 citations
Common causes and common common causes Proposition 3.9 tells us that every common cause incomplete classical probability space can be strongly common cause extended with respect to any (finite) set of correlations; Proposition 4.19 states that every classical probability space is even common cause completable. Note that what these propositions say is not that for a set of correlations between ( A i , B i )( i = 1, 2 … n ) there exists a single, common common cause C in the extension (or completion) for the whole set of correlations; in fact, the common causes C i constructed explicitly in the proof of Proposition 3.9 are all different: C i ≠ C j ( i ≠ j ). This observation leads to the following question. Let ( A i , B i )( i = 1, … n )be a finite set of pairs of events in( X, S, p )that are correlated [ Corr p ( A i , B i ) ＞ 0 for every i ]. We say that C is a common common cause of these correlations if C is a Reichenbachian common cause of the correlated pair ( A i , B i )for every i . Does every set of correlations in a classical probability space have a common common cause? In view of the generality of this question one may surmise that the answer to it is “yes”; that is to say, one may conjecture that given any two correlations there can always exist a Reichenbachian common cause which is a common cause for both correlations, since, one may reason, we just have to refine our picture of the world by adding more and more events to the original event structure in a consistent manner, and finally we shall find a single common cause that explains both correlations.
Common cause partitions Confronted with a common cause incomplete probability space ( X, S, p )in which a direct causal influence between the correlated events is excluded, one can have in principle two strategies aiming at saving the Common Cause Principle: one may try to argue that S is not “rich enough” to contain a common cause, but there might exist a larger probability space ( X ′, S ′, p ′) that already contains a common cause of the correlation. As we have seen in Chapter 3 this strategy always works in the sense that it is always possible to enlarge ( X, S, p ) in such a way that the enlarged probability space already contains an event C that satisfies the Reichenbachian conditions. Another natural idea is to suspect that the correlation between A and B is not due to a single factor but may be the cumulative result of a (possibly large) number of different “partial common causes,” none of which can in and by itself yield a complete common-cause-type explanation of the correlation, all of which, taken together, can however account for the entire correlation. In this chapter we elaborate this idea by formulating precisely a notion of the Reichenbachian Common Cause System (RCCS) and prove propositions on the existence and features of such systems. As we have seen in Chapter 2, if the events A, B, C satisfy the Reichenbachian conditions (2.5)–(2.8) then there is a positive correlation between A and B (Proposition 2.5).
A condition is formulated in terms of the probabilities of two pairs of correlated events in a classical probability space which is necessary for the two correlations to have a single (Reichenbachian) common-cause and it is shown that there exists pairs of correlated events, probabilities of which violate the necessary condition. It is concluded that different correlations do not in general have a common common-cause. It is also shown that this conclusion remains valid even if one weakens slightly Reichenbach's definition of common-cause. The significance of the difference between common-causes and common common-causes is emphasized from the perspective of Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle.
Common cause (in)completeness and extendability In principle, there are two ways to interpret Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle in general, each determined by how one views the status of the Principle with respect to the conditions of its validity: the Principle can be viewed as a falsifiable or a nonfalsifiable principle. In the falsificationist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle is a claim that can possibly and conclusively be shown not to hold for some empirically given events and their correlations; in the nonfalsificationaist interpretation, the Common Cause Principle cannot be falsified conclusively – whatever the actual circumstances. Is the Common Cause Principle falsifiable or nonfalsifiable? We shall argue that the Common Cause Principle, as formulated in Chapter 2, is not falsifiable conclusively, but the argument cannot be trivial, since the Common Cause Principle is certainly not trivially nonfalsifiable: it is not true that every classical probability space ( X, S, p ) is provably common cause complete in the sense that for any A, B ϵ S that are correlated in p there exists a C ϵ S that is a ( proper ) common cause of the correlation between A and B . There exists common cause incomplete probability spaces (for instance the probability space described in Figure 3.1 is common cause incomplete). This makes the following definition nonempty: Definition 3.1 The probability space ( X, S, p )is common cause incomplete if there exist events A, B ϵ S such that Corr p ( A, B ) ＞ 0 but S does not contain a common cause of the correlation Corr p ( A, B ).
No correlation without causation. This is, in its most compact and general formulation, the essence of what has become Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle . More explicitly, the Common Cause Principle says that every correlation is either due to a direct causal effect linking the correlated entities, or is brought about by a third factor, a so-called Reichenbachian common cause that stands in a well-defined probabilistic relation to the correlated events, a relation that explains the correlation in the sense of entailing it. The Common Cause Principle is a nontrivial metaphysical claim about the causal structure of the World and entails that all correlations can (hence, should) be explained causally either by pointing at a causal connection between the correlated entities or by displaying a common cause of the correlation. Thus, the Common Cause Principle licenses one to infer causal connections from probabilistic relations; at the same time the principle does not address whether the causal connection holds between the correlated entities or between the common cause and the elements in the correlation. While the technically explicit notion of common cause of a probabilistic correlation within the framework of classical Kolmogorovian probability theory is due to Reichenbach (1956), the Common Cause Principle was articulated explicitly only later, especially in the works by W. Salmon (see the “Notes and bibliographic remarks” to Chapter 2). The chief aim of this book is to investigate the Common Cause Principle; in particular, the problem of to what extent the Common Cause Principle can explain probabilistic correlations.
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations Explaining the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics in the case of joint quantum systems of the EPR type has proved to be a major challenge for the Common Cause Principle. The EPR correlations have been confirmed by a large number of sophisticated experiments carried out since the early 1980s, and, since quantum theory does not give us any hints as to where to look for possible common causes that could explain the correlations in question, the suspicion arose that common causes of EPR correlations might not exist at all. If this were indeed the case, then the EPR correlations would constitute strong empirical evidence against Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. But how could this be possible in view of the results presented in the previous chapters? As we have seen (Chapter 3), every common cause incomplete probability space is common cause extendible (even strongly common cause extendible with respect to any finite set of correlations; Proposition 3.9); therefore every correlation can, in principle, be explained by a (possibly hidden) common cause, including the (finite number of) EPR correlations. Could the EPR correlations (not) be explained by referring to such hidden common causes? To answer this question, one has to realize first that it is not quite obvious how to link the Common Cause Principle to quantum mechanics because Reichenbach's notion of common cause was defined in terms of classical probability theory (Chapter 2), not in terms of quantum probability theory.
It is shown that, given any finite set of pairs of random events in a Boolean algebra which are correlated with respect to a fixed probability measure on the algebra, the algebra can be extended in such a way that the extension contains events that can be regarded as common causes of the correlations in the sense of Reichenbach's definition of common cause. It is shown, further, that, given any quantum probability space and any set of commuting events in it which are correlated with respect to a fixed quantum state, the quantum probability space can be extended in such a way that the extension contains common causes of all the selected correlations, where common cause is again taken in the sense of Reichenbachs definition. It is argued that these results very strongly restrict the possible ways of disproving Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle.