The paper intends to provide an algebraic framework in which subluminal causation can be analysed. The framework merges Belnap's 'outcomes in branching time' with his 'branching space-time' (BST). it is shown that an important structure in BST, called 'family of outcomes of an event', is a boolean algebra. We define next non-stochastic common cause and analyse GHZ-Bell theorems. We prove that there is no common cause that accounts for results of GHZ-Bell experiment but construct common causes for two other quantum mechanical setups. Finally, we investigate why some setups allow for common causes whereas other setups do not.
The paper intends to provide an algebraic framework in which subluminal causation can be analysed. The framework merges Belnap's 'outcomes in branching time' with his 'branching space-time' (BST). it is shown that an important structure in BST, called 'family of outcomes of an event', is a boolean algebra. We define next non-stochastic common cause and analyse GHZ-Bell theorems. We prove that there is no common cause that accounts for results of GHZ-Bell experiment but construct common causes for two other quantum mechanical setups. Finally, we investigate why some setups allow for common causes whereas other setups do not.
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 paper develops models of statistical experiments that combine propensities with frequencies, the underlying theory being the branching space-times (BST) of Belnap (1992). The models are then applied to analyze Bell's theorem. We prove the so-called Bell-CH inequality via the assumptions of a BST version of Outcome Independence and of (non-probabilistic) No Conspiracy. Notably, neither the condition of probabilistic No Conspiracy nor the condition of Parameter Independence is needed in the proof. As the Bell-CH inequality is most likely experimentally falsified, the choice is this: contrary to the appearances, experimenters cannot choose some measurement settings, or some transitions, with spacelike related initial events, are correlated; or both.
Greenberger, Horne, Shimony and Zeilinger gave a new version of the Bell theorem without using inequalities (probabilities). Mermin summarized it concisely; but Bohm and Hiley criticized Mermin’s proof from contextualists ’ point of view. Using the Branching Space-time language, in this paper a proof will be given that is free of these difficulties. At the same time we will also clarify the limits of the validity of the theorem when it is taken as a proof that quantum mechanics is not compatible with a deterministic world nor with a world that permits correlated space-related events without a common cause.
I compare deterministic and stochastic hidden variable models of the Bell experiment, exphasising philosophical distinctions between the various ways of combining conditionals and probabilities. I make four main claims. (1) Under natural assumptions, locality as it occurs in these models is equivalent to causal independence, as analysed (in the spirit of Lewis) in terms of probabilities and conditionals. (2) Stochastic models are indeed more general than deterministic ones. (3) For factorizable stochastic models, relativity's lack of superluminal causation does not favour locality over completeness. (4) If we prohibit all superluminal causation, then the violation of the Bell inequality teaches us a lesson, besides quantum mechanics' familiar ones that quantities can lack precise values and that pairs of quantities can lack joint probabilities: namely, some pairs of events are not screened off by their common past.
This monograph presents the first detailed exposition of the formal theory of Branching Space-Times. The theory presented here by Nuel D. Belnap, Thomas Muller, and Tomasz Placek describes how real possibilities can play out in our spatio-temporal world. In our world, some things that are really possible in Cleveland are not really possible in San Francisco; other things were really possible in 1988 but are not really possible in 2021. The authors develop a rigorous, relativity-friendly theory of indeterminism as a local and modal concept, demonstrating that our world contains events with alternative possible outcomes. The book is divided into two parts. The first contains the exposition of the theory, including detailed proofs. The second contains three applications of Branching Space-Times in metaphysics and philosophy of science, focusing on the use of Branching Space-Times to represent pertinent forms of indeterminism in each area. Some specific applications include a formal analysis of modal correlations and of causation and a rigorous theory of objective single-case probabilities, intended to represent degrees of possibility. The authors link their theory to current physics, investigating how local and modal indeterminism relates to issues in the foundations of physics, particularly in quantum non-locality and spatio-temporal relativity. They also relate the theory to philosophy of time, showing how it may be used to explicate the dynamic concept of the past, present, and future based on local indeterminism. The Branching Space-Times theory has been in development over the past 25 years. This volume provides a much needed first systematic and comprehensive book-length exposition of both the theory and its applications.
The aim of this paper is to implement Bell’s notion of local causality into a framework, called local physical theory. This framework, based on the axioms of algebraic field theory, is broad enough to integrate both probabilistic and spatiotemporal concepts and also classical and quantum theories. Bell’s original idea of local causality will arise as the classical case of our definition. Classifying local physical theories by whether they obey local primitive causality, a property rendering the dynamics of the theory causal, we then investigate what is needed for a local physical theory to be locally causal. Finally, comparing local causality with the common cause principles and relating both to the Bell inequalities we find a nice parallelism: Bell inequalities cannot be derived neither from local causality nor from a common cause unless the local physical theory is classical or the common cause is commuting, respectively.