Recall van Fraassen's general scheme. Scientific models can depict both observable and unobservable processes. Science itself is supposed to tell us what is and what is not observable. We are to accept the theory if it gets right all that is observable; the rest can be of no matter to us, van Fraassen has suggested, because we could have no evidence about whether the model gets it right or not. We may believe in the model's picture of the unobservable world but that belief is based on faith not evidence, and should be recognised as such. Most of the stuff of modem physics, then, turns out to be in the unobservable part of the model: photons, quarks, gravity-waves, the electromagnetic field, forces, I suppose and even space-time itself. Where are causes? that is the question I want to discuss. We can begin with causal laws. They are surely for van Fraassen not in the model itself any more than any other kinds of laws. They enter, rather, as a constraint on the kinds of structures we will allow our models to have. In a full model for the entire history of the world, or more realistically, in a small model for a given scientific experiment, event-kinds will recur with some frequency. These frequencies are represented by probabilities-though note that the probabilities are not in the models either. If we insist that our scientific theory in a given domain be causal, that will restrict the form of the probability functions which are allowed and hence, in some way, constrain the actual models, which have finite frequencies in them only. Some patterns of correlation will be allowed and some will be prohibited. Consider van Fraassen's discussion of the Einstein-Podalsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox in the follow-up to Laws and Symmetry, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View.' There van Fraassen takes a particular relationship between probabilities-calledfactoriz-
Recall van Fraassen's general scheme. Scientific models can depict both observable and unobservable processes. Science itself is supposed to tell us what is and what is not observable. We are to accept the theory if it gets right all that is observable; the rest can be of no matter to us, van Fraassen has suggested, because we could have no evidence about whether the model gets it right or not. We may believe in the model's picture of the unobservable world but that belief is based on faith not evidence, and should be recognised as such. Most of the stuff of modem physics, then, turns out to be in the unobservable part of the model: photons, quarks, gravity-waves, the electromagnetic field, forces, I suppose and even space-time itself. Where are causes? that is the question I want to discuss. We can begin with causal laws. They are surely for van Fraassen not in the model itself any more than any other kinds of laws. They enter, rather, as a constraint on the kinds of structures we will allow our models to have. In a full model for the entire history of the world, or more realistically, in a small model for a given scientific experiment, event-kinds will recur with some frequency. These frequencies are represented by probabilities-though note that the probabilities are not in the models either. If we insist that our scientific theory in a given domain be causal, that will restrict the form of the probability functions which are allowed and hence, in some way, constrain the actual models, which have finite frequencies in them only. Some patterns of correlation will be allowed and some will be prohibited. Consider van Fraassen's discussion of the Einstein-Podalsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox in the follow-up to Laws and Symmetry, Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View.' There van Fraassen takes a particular relationship between probabilities-calledfactoriz-
There has been an intense discussion, albeit largely an implicit one, concerning the inference of causal hypotheses from statistical correlations in quantum mechanics ever since John Bell’s first statement of his notorious theorem in 1966. As is well known, its focus has mainly been the so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (“EPR”) thought experiment, and the ensuing observed correlations in real EPR like experiments. But although implicitly the discussion goes as far back as Bell’s work, it is only in the last two decades that it has become recognizably and explicitly a debate about causal inference in the quantum realm. The bulk of this paper is devoted to a review of three influential arguments in the philosophical literature that aim to show that causal models for the EPR correlations are impossible, due to Bas Van Fraassen, Daniel Hausman and Huw Price. I contend that all these arguments are inconclusive since they contain premises or presuppositions that are false, unwarranted, or at least controversial. Five different common cause models are outlined that seem perfectly viable for the EPR correlations. These models are then employed to illustrate various difficulties with the premises and presuppositions underlying Van Fraassen’s, Hausman’s and Price’s arguments. In all these cases it is argued that the difficulties cut deep against these authors’ own theories of causation and causal inference. My conclusions are that causal models for the EPR correlations remain viable, that philosophical work is still required to assess their relative virtues, and that in any case the mere theoretical conceivability and empirical possibility of these models sheds doubts over Van Fraassen’s, Hausman’s and (important elements in) Price’s theories of causation and causal inference.
The most important problems in the philosophy of quantum mechanics are the problem of measurement and the problem of the 'acausal' EPR correlations. It is commonly thought that these problems call for a new interpretation of the quantum theory. I argue that it is possible to construe both problems rather differently, as resulting from a mistaken understanding of scientific theory-application. It then becomes possible to tackle both problems independently of questions of interpretation, by attending carefully to what constitutes a successful application of a scientific theory, and of the quantum theory in particular. In the first part of the Thesis, I argue against a standard conception of scientific theory-application. This standard conception, which is often presupposed in the philosophical discussions of quantum mechanics, takes the applications of a scientific theory to constitute its domain of empirical adequacy. I argue that, on the contrary, a scientific theory can be applied to phenomena that it does not subsume. I present a case study in the history of superconductivity to illustrate and to motivate this claim. In the second part, I argue that the problem of measurement can be construed as the impossibility of applying the quantum theory to measurement interactions. I then argue that Arthur Fine's proposed solution to the measurement problem implicitly abandons the standard conception of application. Finally I look at quantum correlation phenomena. Bas Van Fraassen has claimed that the EPR correlations fit no causal model. The correctness of this claim depends on what probabilistic constraints a causal model is taken to have to satisfy. I argue, following Nancy Cartwright, that Van Fraassen's constraints on common-cause models are too strong; and I describe a direct-cause model that, I urge, constitutes a successful application of the quantum theory to the EPR correlations.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
Introduction Important advances in scientific knowledge may, not infrequently, be looked at from several angles. Here, in investigating the question the article title defines, part of our attention will have to be turned on the relationships of Bell's theorem to the old, but still not fully cleared up, question of the nature of causality. The word “nonlocality” means the violation of local causality, the initial meaning of whichwas that no influence, that is, no causal action , can be propagated faster than light. For a long time it was a received view that actions somewhat akin to the basically time-directed ones that living beings perform also take place within inanimate nature. This conception of causality may be called the causality–action theory . But later, having in view Hume's serious reservations concerning it, renowned philosophers of science claimed it might and should be dropped, since the effects it was meant to account for could be explained just as well by considering that what is at work is simply a conjunction of physical laws expressed by means of differential equations – a view that later Hempel and Oppenheim generalized and called the D-N (deductive–nomological) model of explanation (reprinted in [1]). Here the (widely accepted, as it seems) corresponding conception of causality will, for simplicity, be called the law-centered theory of causality . But does the latter theory subsume, at least within physics, all the meanings of the word ‘cause’ that true understanding calls for? Among philosophers the matter is not settled. Hempel himself granted that in several respects the D-N model is somehow inadequate for analyzing the cause–effect relationship [2]. And it seems indeed that a significant argument favoring a ‘no’ answer to the question might have been put forward as early as 1907 (although, to our knowledge, it was not), when Einstein pointed out that according to his then two years old special relativity (SR) theory, if we assumed an effect could follow its cause sooner than light velocity permits, then in some other frames of reference it would occur before its cause. For, concerning this consequence of the assumption, he wrote, “in my opinion, regarded as pure logic … it contains no contradiction; however it absolutely clashes with the character of our total experience, and in this way is proved the impossibility of the hypothesis” [3].
The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations. Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer. This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance when applied to space-time. As Noether showed, space-time symmetries lead to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation--essentially all of classical mechanics. It also leads to Lorentz invariance and special relativity. When generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance. Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles. The conservation and quantization of electric charge follow from global gauge invariance. The electromagnetic force is introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Although not discussed here, the other forces in the standard model of elementary particles are also fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance.