In this doctoral thesis, starting from an analysis of Bertrand Russell's famous critique of the notion of causality, I argue for the outline of a causal model applicable to the indeterministic domain of quantum physics. To support this model, I propose a generalization of Hans Reichenbach's Principle of Common Cause (PCC) and a reformulation of his Mark Transmission Criterion (CTM), along with a reformulation of Wesley Salmon's Interactive Causal Fork (ICF) and his theory of causal processes. Reichenbach's Conjunctive Causal Fork (CCF) will be maintained to explain classical phenomena. The difference between the two kinds of causal fork will be considered one of the keys to understanding the distinction between probability and causality in classical and quantum physics. I also provide an introduction to classical statistical and classical causal modeling and argue for the importance of a more precise definition of the concept of determinism, as well as its non-equivalence with the notion of causality.
In this doctoral thesis, starting from an analysis of Bertrand Russell's famous critique of the notion of causality, I argue for the outline of a causal model applicable to the indeterministic domain of quantum physics. To support this model, I propose a generalization of Hans Reichenbach's Principle of Common Cause (PCC) and a reformulation of his Mark Transmission Criterion (CTM), along with a reformulation of Wesley Salmon's Interactive Causal Fork (ICF) and his theory of causal processes. Reichenbach's Conjunctive Causal Fork (CCF) will be maintained to explain classical phenomena. The difference between the two kinds of causal fork will be considered one of the keys to understanding the distinction between probability and causality in classical and quantum physics. I also provide an introduction to classical statistical and classical causal modeling and argue for the importance of a more precise definition of the concept of determinism, as well as its non-equivalence with the notion of causality.
We offer a review of some of the most influential views on the status of Reichenbach’s Principle of the Common Cause (PCC) for genuinely indeterministic systems. We first argue that the PCC is properly a conjunction of two distinct claims, one metaphysical and another methodological. Both claims can and have been contested in the literature, but here we simply assume that the metaphysical claim is correct, in order to focus our analysis on the status of the methodological claim. We briefly review the most entrenched or classical positions, including Salmon’s ‘interactive forks’, van Fraassen’s scepticism, and Cartwright’s generalisation of the fork criterion. We then go on to review the results of the ‘Budapest school’ on the existence of formally defined screening-off events for any correlation —by means of the ideas of probability space extensibility and (Reichenbachian common cause) completability. We distinguish the Budapest doctrine clearly from any of the classical conceptions, and thus present an overall framework for discussions of causal inference in quantum mechanics. The framework, however preliminary, is essential work for a thorough assessment of the conditions under which PCC may be a reliable tool for causal inference in a genuinely probabilistic (indeterministic) context.
Philosophical analyses of causation take many forms but one major difficulty they all aim to address is that of the spatiotemporal continuity between causes and their effects. Bertrand Russell in 1913 brought the problem to its most transparent form and made it a case against the notion of causation in physics. The issue highlighted in Russell's argument is that of temporal contiguity between cause and effect. This tension arises from the imposition of a spectrum of discrete events occupying spacetime points upon a background of spacetime continuum. An immediate and natural solution is to superpose instead spatiotemporally continuous entities, or processes, on the spacetime continuum. This is indeed the process view of physical causation advocated by Wesley Salmon and Phil Dowe. This view takes the continuous trajectories of physical objects (worldlines) as the causal connection whereby causal influences in the form of conserved quantities are transported amongst events. Because of their reliance on spatiotemporal continuity, these theories have difficulty when confronted with the discontinuous processes in the quantum domain. This thesis is concerned with process theories. It has two parts. The first part introduces and criticizes these theories, which leads to my proposal of the History Conserved Quantity Theory with Transmission. The second part considers the extension of the idea of causal processes to quantum physics. I show how a probability distribution generated by the Schrodinger wavefunction can be regarded as a conserved quantity that makes the spacetime evolution of the wavefunction a quantum causal process. However, there are conceptual problems in the interpretation of the wavefunction, chiefly to do, as I shall argue, with the difference in the behaviours of probabilistic potentials between quantum and classical physics. I propose in the final chapter, the Feynman Path Integral formulation of quantum mechanics (with the Feynman histories) as an alternative approach to incorporating the probabilistic potentials in quantum physics. This account of how to introduce causal processes in quantum mechanics fares better, I claim, than the previous one in dealing with the situational aspect of quantum phenomena that requires the consideration of events at more than one time.
This Ph.D. thesis is about causality in Quantum Mechanics, namely about the possibility to provide a causal explanation for quantum Einstein – Podolsky – Rosen (EPR) correlations.The well-known interpretation of the Bell’s Theorem by Bastian Van Fraassen, who inferred that quantum correlations cannot be embedded in any causal model, compels us to suppose that microscopic nature cannot have a causal structure and that causality is an anthropological concept.However, this interpretation is not commonly accepted and this doctoral thesis is the first general overview of some recent works about causal explanation for EPR correlations. Particularly, it analyses the possible causal explanations for the EPR/Bohm experiments by means of the Hans Reichenbach’s model, by means of backward causation models, and by means of models that imply a direct causal link. In order to do it, it pays particular attention to the Relativistic space-time features and it considers the studies in the History of Philosophy about the link between causal arrow and temporal arrow. Moreover, this work aims to endorse the idea that the best way to explain EPR/Bohm correlations causally is to adopt an indeterministic non-Reichenbachian common cause model, particularly Cartwright’sgeneral forksmodel.My conclusion is that causal models for quantum correlations remain viable, and that there is no contrast between genuinely indeterministic interpretation of Quantum Theory and causal explanation, with the philosophical implication that the Causal Realism is still acceptable.
Quantum theory describes our universe incredibly successfully. To our classically-inclined brains, however, it is a bizarre description that requires a reimagining of what fundamental reality, or “ontology”, could look like. This thesis examines different ontological features in light of the success of quantum theory, what it requires, and what it rules out. While these investigations are primarily foundational, they also have relevance to quantum information, quantum communication, and experiments on quantum systems. The way that quantum theory describes the state of a system is one of its most unintuitive features. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether a similarly strange description of states is required on an ontological level. This thesis proves that almost all quantum superposition states for d > 3 dimensions must be real—that is, present in the ontology in a well-defined sense. This is a strong requirement which prevents intuitive explanations of the many quantum phenomena which are based on superpositions. A new theorem is also presented showing that quantum theory is incompatible with macro-realist ontologies, where certain physical quantities must always have definite values. This improves on the Leggett-Garg argument, which also aims to prove incompatibility with macro-realism but contains loopholes. Variations on both of these results that are error-tolerant (and therefore amenable to experimentation) are presented, as well as numerous related theorems showing that the ontology of quantum states must be somewhat similar to the quantum states themselves in various specific ways. Extending these same methods to quantum communication, a simple proof is found showing that an exponential number of classical bits are required to communicate a linear number of qubits. That is, classical systems are exponentially bad at storing quantum data. Causal influences are another part of ontology where quantum theory demands a revision of our classical notions. This follows from the outcomes of Bell experiments, as rigorously shown in recent analyses. Here, the task of constructing a native quantum framework for reasoning about causal influences is tackled. This is done by first analysing the simple example of a common cause, from which a quantum version of Reichenbach’s principle is identified. This quantum principle relies on an identification of quantum conditional independence which can be defined in four ways, each naturally generalising a corresponding definition for classical conditional independence. Not only does this allow one to reason about common causes in a quantum experiments, but it can also be generalised to a full framework of quantum causal models (mirroring how classical causal models generalise Reichenbach’s principle). This new definition of quantum causal models is illustrated by examples and strengthened by it’s foundation on a robust quantum Reichenbach’s principle. An unusual, but surprisingly fruitful, setting for considering quantum ontology is found by considering time travel to the past. This provides a testbed for different ontological concepts in quantum theory and new ways to compare classical and quantum frameworks. It is especially useful for comparing computational properties. In particular, time travel introduces non-linearity to quantum theory, which brings (sometimes implicit) ontological assumptions to the fore while introducing strange new abilities. Here, a model for quantum time travel is presented which arguably has fewer objectionable features than previous attempts, while remaining similarly well-motivated. This model is discussed and compared with previous quantum models, as well as with the classical case. Together, these threads of investigation develop a better understanding of how quantum theory affects possible ontologies and how ontological prejudices influence quantum theory.
Reichenbach's principle asserts that if two observed variables are found to be correlated, then there should be a causal explanation of these correlations.Furthermore, if the explanation is in terms of a common cause, then the conditional probability distribution over the variables given the complete common cause should factorize.The principle is generalized by the formalism of causal models, in which the causal relationships among variables constrain the form of their joint probability distribution.In the quantum case, however, the observed correlations in Bell experiments cannot be explained in the manner Reichenbach's principle would seem to demand.Motivated by this, we introduce a quantum counterpart to the principle.We demonstrate that under the assumption that quantum dynamics is fundamentally unitary, if a quantum channel with input A and outputs B and C is compatible with A being a complete common cause of B and C, then it must factorize in a particular way.Finally, we show how to generalize our quantum version of Reichenbach's principle to a formalism for quantum causal models and provide examples of how the formalism works.
Reichenbach's principle asserts that if two observed variables are found to be correlated, then there should be a causal explanation of these correlations.Furthermore, if the explanation is in terms of a common cause, then the conditional probability distribution over the variables given the complete common cause should factorize.The principle is generalized by the formalism of causal models, in which the causal relationships among variables constrain the form of their joint probability distribution.In the quantum case, however, the observed correlations in Bell experiments cannot be explained in the manner Reichenbach's principle would seem to demand.Motivated by this, we introduce a quantum counterpart to the principle.We demonstrate that under the assumption that quantum dynamics is fundamentally unitary, if a quantum channel with input A and outputs B and C is compatible with A being a complete common cause of B and C, then it must factorize in a particular way.Finally, we show how to generalize our quantum version of Reichenbach's principle to a formalism for quantum causal models and provide examples of how the formalism works.