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

Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell's condition of local causality mathematically 'sharp and clean'

M.P. info eu-repo, Dai, M. P. Seevinck, J.B.M. info eu-repo, Uffink

Published Jan 1, 2011• 4 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Not Throwing out the Baby with the Bathwater: Bell’s Condition of Local Causality Mathematically ‘Sharp and Clean’

M. P. Seevinck, Jos Uffink

arXiv:1007.3724•Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2011•41 citations

Relating Bell’s Local Causality to the Causal Markov Condition

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó

Foundations of Physics•Feb 5, 2015•5 citations

Bell’s Notion of Local Causality

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Péter Vecsernyés

SpringerBriefs in philosophy•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

A generalized definition of Bell’s local causality

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Péter Vecsernyés

Synthese•Oct 8, 2015•3 citations

Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett

Travis Norsen

arXiv:0808.2178•Foundations of Physics•Feb 3, 2009•55 citations

Retrieving the Baby: Reichenbach's Principle, Bell Locality, and Selection Bias

Huw Price

In his late piece 'La nouvelle cuisine' (Bell 1990), John Bell describes the steps from an intuitive, informal principle of locality to a mathematical rule called Factorizability. This rule stipulates that when possible past causes are held fixed, the joint probabilities of outcomes of spacelike separated measurements, conditional on measurement settings, be the product of the local conditional probabilities individually. Bell shows that Factorizability conflicts with predictions of QM, predictions since confirmed in many experiments. However, Bell warns his readers that the steps leading to Factorizability should 'be viewed with the utmost suspicion'. He says that 'it is precisely in cleaning up intuitive ideas for mathematics that one is likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater' (1990, 239). Bell's suspicions were well-founded, for he himself misses an important baby. Here we retrieve and identify it: it is selection bias. We explain how failure of Factorizability may be regarded as a selection artefact, requiring no violation of locality in the intuitive, conceptual sense with which Bell begins his analysis. The argument begins with a central principle of causal discovery, Reichenbach's Principle of Common Cause (PCC). It is well known that correlations due to selection bias are not subject to PCC. Several writers have proposed that EPR-Bell correlations are also an exception to PCC, but it has not been noticed that they fall under this well-known exclusion. The point is relevant not only to the status of Bell nonlocality, but also for statistics and causal modeling. For these fields, the news is that selection effects play a ubiquitous role in quantum phenomena, in a form akin to collider bias.

quant-pharXiv:2602.16985•Feb 20, 2026•0 citations
In his late piece 'La nouvelle cuisine' (Bell 1990), John Bell describes the steps from an intuitive, informal principle of locality to a mathematical rule called Factorizability. This rule stipulates that when possible past causes are held fixed, the joint probabilities of outcomes of spacelike separated measurements, conditional on measurement settings, be the product of the local conditional probabilities individually. Bell shows that Factorizability conflicts with predictions of QM, predictions since confirmed in many experiments. However, Bell warns his readers that the steps leading to Factorizability should 'be viewed with the utmost suspicion'. He says that 'it is precisely in cleaning up intuitive ideas for mathematics that one is likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater' (1990, 239). Bell's suspicions were well-founded, for he himself misses an important baby. Here we retrieve and identify it: it is selection bias. We explain how failure of Factorizability may be regarded as a selection artefact, requiring no violation of locality in the intuitive, conceptual sense with which Bell begins his analysis. The argument begins with a central principle of causal discovery, Reichenbach's Principle of Common Cause (PCC). It is well known that correlations due to selection bias are not subject to PCC. Several writers have proposed that EPR-Bell correlations are also an exception to PCC, but it has not been noticed that they fall under this well-known exclusion. The point is relevant not only to the status of Bell nonlocality, but also for statistics and causal modeling. For these fields, the news is that selection effects play a ubiquitous role in quantum phenomena, in a form akin to collider bias.