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

Philosophy of Science

Counterfactual Definiteness and Local Causation

Brian Skyrms

Published Mar 1, 1982• 31 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Bell's Theorem is proved for locality and conservation formulated in terms of subjunctive conditionals with chance consequents, rather than the usual conditional probability formulation. This brings into sharp focus the minimal counterfactual assumptions needed for Bell's theorem.
DOI
10.1086/289033

Related papers

Non-locality and Possible World

Tomasz Bigaj

This book uses the formal semantics of counterfactual conditionals to analyze the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics. Counterfactual conditionals (subjunctive conditionals) enter the analysis of quantum entangled systems in that they enable us to precisely formulate the locality condition that purports to exclude the existence of causal interactions between spatially separated parts of a system. They also make it possible to speak consistently about alternative measuring settings, and to explicate what is meant by quantum property attributions. The book develops the possible-world semantics of quantum counterfactuals using David Lewis’s famous approach as a starting point but modifying it significantly in order to achieve compatibility with the demands of the special theory of relativity as well as quantum mechanics. There have been several attempts to use counterfactual semantics to strengthen Bell’s theorem and its cognates such as the GHZ and Hardy theorems. These are critically evaluated in the book. Finally, a counterfactual reconstruction of the EPR argument and Bell’s theorem is proposed that sheds a new light on their philosophical consequences regarding the relations between realism and local causation.

De Gruyter eBooks•Dec 31, 2006•8 citations

Bell inequalities, counterfactual definiteness and falsifiability

Justo Pastor Lambare

We formally prove the existence of an enduring incongruence pervading a widespread interpretation of the Bell inequality and explain how to rationally avoid it with a natural assumption justified by explicit reference to a mathematical property of Bell’s probabilistic model. Although the amendment does not alter the relevance of the theorem regarding local realism, it brings back Bell theorem from the realm of philosophical discussions about counterfactual conditionals to the concrete experimental arena.

arXiv:1911.00343•International Journal of Quantum Information•Apr 1, 2021•11 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

Strong versions of Bell’s theorem

Henry Pierce Stapp

Technical aspects of a recently constructed strong version of Bell's theorem are discussed. The theorem assumes neither hidden variables nor factorization, and neither determinism nor counterfactual definiteness. It deals directly with logical connections. Hence its relationship with modal logic needs to be described. It is shown that the proof can be embedded in an orthodox modal logic, and hence its compatibility with modal logic assured, but that this embedding weakens the theorem by introducing as added assumptions the conventionalities of the particular modal logic that is adopted. This weakening is avoided in the recent proof by using directly the set-theoretic conditions entailed by the locality assumption.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1994•10 citations

A possible statistics loophole in Bell's theorem

Andrea Aiello

Bell's theorem proves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and local realistic hidden-variable theories. In this paper we show that, contrary to a common belief, the theoretical proof of Bell's theorem is not affected by counterfactual reasoning. Then, we demonstrate that the experimental verification of this theorem may be affected in an unknowable way by our ignorance about the probability distribution of the hidden variables. Our study is based on the standard theory of random variables, and lays the groundwork for a critical rethinking of Bell's theorem and its consequences.

arXiv:2412.17857•Dec 20, 2024•0 citations

A Bell Theorem with no locality assumption

Charles P. Tresser

We prove here a version of Bell Theorem that does not assume locality. As a consequence classical realism, and not locality, is the common source of the violation by nature of all Bell Inequalities.

arXiv:quant-ph/0608008•Aug 1, 2006•0 citations
This book uses the formal semantics of counterfactual conditionals to analyze the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics. Counterfactual conditionals (subjunctive conditionals) enter the analysis of quantum entangled systems in that they enable us to precisely formulate the locality condition that purports to exclude the existence of causal interactions between spatially separated parts of a system. They also make it possible to speak consistently about alternative measuring settings, and to explicate what is meant by quantum property attributions. The book develops the possible-world semantics of quantum counterfactuals using David Lewis’s famous approach as a starting point but modifying it significantly in order to achieve compatibility with the demands of the special theory of relativity as well as quantum mechanics. There have been several attempts to use counterfactual semantics to strengthen Bell’s theorem and its cognates such as the GHZ and Hardy theorems. These are critically evaluated in the book. Finally, a counterfactual reconstruction of the EPR argument and Bell’s theorem is proposed that sheds a new light on their philosophical consequences regarding the relations between realism and local causation.
We formally prove the existence of an enduring incongruence pervading a widespread interpretation of the Bell inequality and explain how to rationally avoid it with a natural assumption justified by explicit reference to a mathematical property of Bell’s probabilistic model. Although the amendment does not alter the relevance of the theorem regarding local realism, it brings back Bell theorem from the realm of philosophical discussions about counterfactual conditionals to the concrete experimental arena.
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.
Technical aspects of a recently constructed strong version of Bell's theorem are discussed. The theorem assumes neither hidden variables nor factorization, and neither determinism nor counterfactual definiteness. It deals directly with logical connections. Hence its relationship with modal logic needs to be described. It is shown that the proof can be embedded in an orthodox modal logic, and hence its compatibility with modal logic assured, but that this embedding weakens the theorem by introducing as added assumptions the conventionalities of the particular modal logic that is adopted. This weakening is avoided in the recent proof by using directly the set-theoretic conditions entailed by the locality assumption.
Bell's theorem proves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and local realistic hidden-variable theories. In this paper we show that, contrary to a common belief, the theoretical proof of Bell's theorem is not affected by counterfactual reasoning. Then, we demonstrate that the experimental verification of this theorem may be affected in an unknowable way by our ignorance about the probability distribution of the hidden variables. Our study is based on the standard theory of random variables, and lays the groundwork for a critical rethinking of Bell's theorem and its consequences.