We prove that under some technical assumptions on a general, non-classical probability space, the probability space is extendible into a larger probability space that is common cause closed in the sense of containing a common cause of every correlation between elements in the space. It is argued that the philosophical significance of this common cause completability result is that it allows the defence of the Common Cause principle against certain attempts of falsification. Some open problems concerning possible strengthening of the common cause completability result are formulated.
We prove that under some technical assumptions on a general, non-classical probability space, the probability space is extendible into a larger probability space that is common cause closed in the sense of containing a common cause of every correlation between elements in the space. It is argued that the philosophical significance of this common cause completability result is that it allows the defence of the Common Cause principle against certain attempts of falsification. Some open problems concerning possible strengthening of the common cause completability result are formulated.
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 ).
We give a few results concerning the notions of causal completability and causal closedness of classical probability spaces (Hofer-Szabó et al. [1999]; Gyenis and Rédei [2004]). We prove that (i) any classical probability space has a causally closed extension; (ii) any finite classical probability space with positive rational probabilities on the atoms of the event algebra can be extended to a causally up-to-three-closed finite space; and (iii) any classical probability space can be extended to a space in which all correlations between events that are logically independent modulo measure zero event have a countably infinite common-cause system. Collectively, these results show that it is surprisingly easy to find Reichenbach-style ‘explanations' for correlations, underlining doubts as to whether this approach can yield a philosophically relevant account of causality. 1 Introduction2 Basic Definitions and Results in the Literature3 Causal Completability the Easy Way: ‘Splitting the Atom’4 Causal Completability of Classical Probability Spaces: The General Case5 Infinite Statistical Common-Cause Systems for Arbitrary Pairs6 Conclusion Appendix A
The aim of this paper is to give a review of the known results and open problems concerning causal completeness (closedness) of classical and non-classical (quantum) probability spaces. Causal closedness of a probabilistic theory means that the theory is causally rich enough to be able to explain causally all the correlations it predicts. It is natural to ask whether probabilistic theories are causally closed if one assumes that Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle holds: this principle states that if two events A and B are probabilistically correlated then either the correlation is due to a causal interaction between A and B, or, if A and B are causally independent, Rind(A,B), then there exists a third event C, a so-called common cause that explains the correlation by being related to A and B probabilistically in a specific way (see Definition 1). Causal closedness of a probabilistic theory is intended to express that the theory complies with the Common Cause Principle; accordingly, and more precisely, a probability theory is defined to be causally closed with respect to a causal independence relation
Causal closedness and common cause closedness Assuming that Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle is valid, one is led to the question of whether our probabilistic theories predicting probabilistic correlations can be causally rich enough to also contain the causes of all the correlations they predict. The aim of this chapter is to formulate precisely and investigate this question. According to the Common Cause Principle, causal richness of a theory T would manifest in T 's being causally closed (complete) in the sense of being capable of explaining the correlations by containing a common cause of every correlation between causally independent events A, B . This feature of a theory is formulated in the next two definitions of causal closedness. In both definitions ( X, S, p )is a probability space and R ind is a two-place causal independence relation that is assumed to have been defined between elements of S . We treat the relation R ind as a variable in the problem of causal closedness; hence, at this point we leave open what properties R ind should have to be acceptable as a causal independence relation – later we will return to the issue of how to specify it. Definition 4.1 The probability space ( X, S, p ) is called causally closed with respect to R ind , if for every correlation Corr p ( A, B ) ＞ 0 with A ϵ S and B ϵ S such that R ind ( A, B ) holds, there exists a common cause C of some type in S .
In recent years part of the literature on probabilistic causality concerned notions stemming from Reichenbach’s idea of explaining correlations between not directly causally related events by referring to their common causes. A few related notions have been introduced, e.g. that of a “common cause system” (Hofer-Szabó and Rédei in Int J Theor Phys 43(7/8):1819–1826, 2004 ) and “causal (N-)closedness” of probability spaces (Gyenis and Rédei in Found Phys 34(9):1284–1303, 2004 ; Hofer-Szabó and Rédei in Found Phys 36(5):745–756, 2006 ). In this paper we introduce a new and natural notion similar to causal closedness and prove a number of theorems which can be seen as extensions of earlier results from the literature. Most notably we prove that a finite probability space is causally closed in our sense iff its measure is uniform. We also present a generalisation of this result to a class of non-classical probability spaces.
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 common cause. The principle is of central importance in the philosophy of science, especially in causal explanation, causal modeling and in the foundations of quantum physics. Written for philosophers of science, physicists and statisticians, this book contributes to the debate over the validity of the common cause principle, by proving results that bring to the surface the nature of explanation by common causes. It provides a technical and mathematically rigorous examination of the notion of common cause, providing an analysis not only in terms of classical probability measure spaces, which is typical in the available literature, but in quantum probability theory as well. The authors provide numerous open problems to further the debate and encourage future research in this field.