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

Is Howard's separability principle a sufficient condition for outcome independence?

Paul Boës

Published Jan 1, 2013• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Essay content differs substantially from presentation! In order to motivate his claim that the violation of the Bell inequalities forces us into a certain kind of holism, Howard (1985,1989,1992) develops a formal equivalence proof supposed to ground the stochastic “outcome independence” condition, the assumption of which is necessary for the derivation of the inequalities, in a physical principle, the separability principle. I will discuss several criticisms of Howard's equivalence proof that focus on the sufficiency of the separability principle for outcome independence. I will argue that, while none of these criticisms succeeds, they do constrain the possible form of Howard's argument.

Related papers

Bell's Theorem, Nonseparability, and Spacetime Individuation in Quantum Mechanics

Darrin W.S. Belousek

We first examine Howard's analysis of the Bell factorizability condition in terms of ‘separability’ and ‘locality’ and then consider his claims that the violations of Bell's inequality by the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics should be interpreted in terms of ‘nonseparability’ rather than ‘nonlocality’ and that ‘nonseparability’ implies the failure of spacetime as a principle of individuation for quantum-mechanical systems. We will argue that his argument for the first claim is less than compelling and that any argument for the second claim will be interpretation-dependent and, hence, not generally valid.

Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 1999•4 citations

Holism and non-separability applied to quantum mechanics

Catherine E Nisson

Einstein was never satisfied with quantum mechanics. He argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete for two main reasons; it violated the locality principle and the separability principle. The violation of separability is an unavoidable consequence of quantum interactions. Non-separability can be seen in quantum entanglement. Non-locality, however, is more controversial. Einstein and his associates published the EPR paper in order to argue for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Years later, John Bell formulated what became known as the Bell Inequalities in response to the EPR paper. The Bell Inequalities are seen as a major obstacle for quantum locality. I will argue that non-locality is not a necessary implication of the Bell Inequalities. The Bell Inequalities were developed using Bell’s locality requirement as a major premise. Bell’s locality requirement can be described in terms of two conditions, parameter independence and outcome independence. A violation of either condition will lead to a violation of the Bell inequalities. Parameter independence is not violated by the results of experimental quantum physics. So, it can be argued that violations of the Bell inequalities are caused by the violation of outcome independence. Such a violation of outcome independence does not imply non-locality if we accept some form of holism or non-separability. Thus, by including some form of holism or non-separability into our picture of the quantum realm we can develop a theory that does not conflict with locality. This paper will discuss different types of holism and non-separability and how they can be used to help understand quantum phenomena.

•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations

Einstein, Bell, and Nonseparable Realism

Federico Laudisa

In the context of stochastic hidden variable theories, Howard has argued that the role of separability—spatially separated systems possess distinct real states—has been underestimated. Howard claims that separability is equivalent to Jarrett‘s completeness: this equivalence should imply that the Bell theorem forces us to give up either separability or locality. Howard's claim, however, is shown to be ill founded since it is based on an implausible assumption. The necessity of sharply distinguishing separability and locality is emphasized: a quantitative formulation of separability, due to D'Espagnat, is reviewed and found unsatisfactory, in that it basically conflates separability and locality in a single notion. Finally, the possibility of an ‘Einsteinian’ nonseparable realism, envisaged by Shimony, is reviewed and found also to be implausible.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1995•9 citations

Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so...

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.

arXiv:1501.04618•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•100 citations

From locality to factorizability: a novel escape from Bell's theorem

G. S. Ciepielewski, E. Okon

While initial versions of Bell's theorem captured the notion of locality with the assumption of factorizability, in later presentations, Bell argued that factorizability could be derived from the more fundamental principle of local causality. Here we show that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, in order to derive factorizability from the principle of local causality, a non-trivial assumption, similar but strictly independent of settings independence, is required. Loosely speaking, such an extra assumption demands independence between the states of the measurement apparatuses. We conclude that it is possible to construct a model, satisfying both the principle of local causality and settings independence, but that, in virtue of violating this additional assumption--and thus factorizability--is able to break Bell's inequality.

arXiv:2204.05162•Apr 11, 2022•0 citations

Stochastic Outcomes in Branching Space-Time: Analysis of Bell's Theorem

Tomasz Placek

The paper extends the framework of outcomes in branching space-time (Kowalski and Placek [1999]) by assigning probabilities to outcomes of events, where these probabilities are interpreted either epistemically or as weighted possibilities. In resulting models I define the notion of common cause of correlated outcomes of a single event, and investigate which setups allow for the introduction of common causes. It turns out that a deterministic common cause can always be introduced, but (surprisingly) only special setups permit the introduction of truly stochastic common causes. I analyse next the Bell-Aspect experiment and derive the Bell-CH inequalities. I observe that we postulate there not a common cause for outcomes of a single event but rather a common common cause that accounts for outcomes of many events, where 'events' mean 'measurements with (different) directions of polarization'. Since the inequalities are violated, I claim that no causal story can be told about the Bell correlations, where causality is subliminal and restricted by screening-off condition. Similarly, given certain intuitive principles, no deterministic story can be told about these correlations.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 2000•29 citations
Essay content differs substantially from presentation! In order to motivate his claim that the violation of the Bell inequalities forces us into a certain kind of holism, Howard (1985,1989,1992) develops a formal equivalence proof supposed to ground the stochastic “outcome independence” condition, the assumption of which is necessary for the derivation of the inequalities, in a physical principle, the separability principle. I will discuss several criticisms of Howard's equivalence proof that focus on the sufficiency of the separability principle for outcome independence. I will argue that, while none of these criticisms succeeds, they do constrain the possible form of Howard's argument.
We first examine Howard's analysis of the Bell factorizability condition in terms of ‘separability’ and ‘locality’ and then consider his claims that the violations of Bell's inequality by the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics should be interpreted in terms of ‘nonseparability’ rather than ‘nonlocality’ and that ‘nonseparability’ implies the failure of spacetime as a principle of individuation for quantum-mechanical systems. We will argue that his argument for the first claim is less than compelling and that any argument for the second claim will be interpretation-dependent and, hence, not generally valid.
Einstein was never satisfied with quantum mechanics. He argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete for two main reasons; it violated the locality principle and the separability principle. The violation of separability is an unavoidable consequence of quantum interactions. Non-separability can be seen in quantum entanglement. Non-locality, however, is more controversial. Einstein and his associates published the EPR paper in order to argue for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Years later, John Bell formulated what became known as the Bell Inequalities in response to the EPR paper. The Bell Inequalities are seen as a major obstacle for quantum locality. I will argue that non-locality is not a necessary implication of the Bell Inequalities. The Bell Inequalities were developed using Bell’s locality requirement as a major premise. Bell’s locality requirement can be described in terms of two conditions, parameter independence and outcome independence. A violation of either condition will lead to a violation of the Bell inequalities. Parameter independence is not violated by the results of experimental quantum physics. So, it can be argued that violations of the Bell inequalities are caused by the violation of outcome independence. Such a violation of outcome independence does not imply non-locality if we accept some form of holism or non-separability. Thus, by including some form of holism or non-separability into our picture of the quantum realm we can develop a theory that does not conflict with locality. This paper will discuss different types of holism and non-separability and how they can be used to help understand quantum phenomena.
In the context of stochastic hidden variable theories, Howard has argued that the role of separability—spatially separated systems possess distinct real states—has been underestimated. Howard claims that separability is equivalent to Jarrett‘s completeness: this equivalence should imply that the Bell theorem forces us to give up either separability or locality. Howard's claim, however, is shown to be ill founded since it is based on an implausible assumption. The necessity of sharply distinguishing separability and locality is emphasized: a quantitative formulation of separability, due to D'Espagnat, is reviewed and found unsatisfactory, in that it basically conflates separability and locality in a single notion. Finally, the possibility of an ‘Einsteinian’ nonseparable realism, envisaged by Shimony, is reviewed and found also to be implausible.
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.
While initial versions of Bell's theorem captured the notion of locality with the assumption of factorizability, in later presentations, Bell argued that factorizability could be derived from the more fundamental principle of local causality. Here we show that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, in order to derive factorizability from the principle of local causality, a non-trivial assumption, similar but strictly independent of settings independence, is required. Loosely speaking, such an extra assumption demands independence between the states of the measurement apparatuses. We conclude that it is possible to construct a model, satisfying both the principle of local causality and settings independence, but that, in virtue of violating this additional assumption--and thus factorizability--is able to break Bell's inequality.
The paper extends the framework of outcomes in branching space-time (Kowalski and Placek [1999]) by assigning probabilities to outcomes of events, where these probabilities are interpreted either epistemically or as weighted possibilities. In resulting models I define the notion of common cause of correlated outcomes of a single event, and investigate which setups allow for the introduction of common causes. It turns out that a deterministic common cause can always be introduced, but (surprisingly) only special setups permit the introduction of truly stochastic common causes. I analyse next the Bell-Aspect experiment and derive the Bell-CH inequalities. I observe that we postulate there not a common cause for outcomes of a single event but rather a common common cause that accounts for outcomes of many events, where 'events' mean 'measurements with (different) directions of polarization'. Since the inequalities are violated, I claim that no causal story can be told about the Bell correlations, where causality is subliminal and restricted by screening-off condition. Similarly, given certain intuitive principles, no deterministic story can be told about these correlations.