Counterfactual reasoning and contextuality is defined and critically evaluated with regard to its nonempirical content. To this end, a uniqueness property of states, explosion views and link observables are introduced. If only a single context associated with a particular maximum set of observables can be operationalized, then a context translation principle resolves measurements of different contexts.
Counterfactual reasoning and contextuality is defined and critically evaluated with regard to its nonempirical content. To this end, a uniqueness property of states, explosion views and link observables are introduced. If only a single context associated with a particular maximum set of observables can be operationalized, then a context translation principle resolves measurements of different contexts.
Abstract. Counterfactual reasoning and contextuality is defined and critically evaluated with regard to its nonempirical content. To this end, a uniqueness property of states, explosion views and link observables are introduced. If only a single context associated with a particular maximum set of observables can be operationalized, then a context translation principle resolves measurements of different contexts. COUNTERFACTUALS With the rise of quantum mechanics [1, 2, 3, 4] physics proper entered an ancient and sometimes fierce debate in theology and philosophy: the controversy between realism versus idealism. Whereas realism has been subsumed by the proposition that [5] “some entities sometimes exist without being experienced by any finite mind, ” idealism put forward that “we have not the faintest reason for believing in the existence of unexperienced entities. [[Realism]] has been adopted... solely because it simplifies our view of the universe. ” And whereas these issues can be considered nonoperational and thus metaphysical or even ideological, it is also true that they have inspired a great number of minds, to the effect of stimulating new approaches to quantum mechanics, revealing many theoretical details, quantum phenomena and quantum technologies. The Kochen-Specker theorem [6], for example, was motivated from the onset by scholasticism, as in an early programmatic article [7] Ernst Specker related the discussion on the foundations of quantum mechanics to scholastic
Contextuality is usually defined as absence of a joint distribution for a set of measurements (random variables) with known joint distributions of some of its subsets. However, if these subsets of measurements are not disjoint, contextuality is mathematically impossible even if one generally allows (as one must) for random variables not to be jointly distributed. To avoid contradictions one has to adopt the Contextuality‐by‐Default approach: measurements made in different contexts are always distinct and stochastically unrelated to each other. Contextuality is reformulated then in terms of the (im)possibility of imposing on all the measurements in a system a joint distribution of a particular kind: such that any measurements of one and the same property made in different contexts satisfy a specified property, . In the traditional analysis of contextuality means “are equal to each other with probability 1”. However, if the system of measurements violates the “no‐disturbance principle”, due to signaling or experimental biases, then the meaning of has to be generalized, and the proposed generalization is “are equal to each other with maximal possible probability” (applied to any set of measurements of one and the same property). This approach is illustrated on arbitrary systems of binary measurements, including most of quantum systems of traditional interest in contextuality studies (irrespective of whether the “no‐disturbance” principle holds in them).
The circumstances of measurement have more direct significance in quantum than in classical physics, where they can be neglected for well-performed measurements. In quantum mechanics, the dispositions of the measuring apparatus-plus-environment of the system measured for a property are a non-trivial part of its formalization as the quantum observable. A straightforward formalization of context, via equivalence classes of measurements corresponding to sets of sharp target observables, was recently given for sharp quantum observables. Here, we show that quantum contextuality, the dependence of measurement outcomes on circumstances external to the measured quantum system, can be manifested not only as the strict exclusivity of different measurements of sharp observables or valuations but via quantitative differences in the property statistics across simultaneous measurements of generalized quantum observables, by formalizing quantum context via coexistent generalized observables rather than only its subset of compatible sharp observables. Here, the question of whether such quantum contextuality follows from basic quantum principles is then addressed, and it is shown that the Principle of Indeterminacy is sufficient for at least one form of non-trivial contextuality. Contextuality is thus seen to be a natural feature of quantum mechanics rather than something arising only from the consideration of impossible measurements, abstract philosophical issues, hidden-variables theories, or other alternative, classical models of quantum behavior.
Counterfactual definiteness (CFD) means that if some property is measured in some context, then the outcome of the measurement would have been the same had this property been measured in a different context. A context includes all other measurements made together with the one in question, and the spatiotemporal relations among them. The proviso for CFD is non-disturbance: any physical influence of the contexts on the property being measured is excluded by the laws of nature, so that no one measuring this property has a way of ascertaining its context. It is usually claimed that in quantum mechanics CFD does not hold, because if one assigns the same value to a property in all contexts it is measured in, one runs into a logical contradiction, or at least contravenes quantum theory and experimental evidence. We show that this claim is not substantiated if one takes into account that only one of the possible contexts can be a factual context, all other contexts being counterfactual. With this in mind, any system of random variables can be viewed as satisfying CFD. The concept of CFD is closely related to but distinct from that of noncontextuality, and it is the latter property that may or may not hold for a system, in particular being contravened by some quantum systems.
This paper deals with three traditional ways of defining contextuality: (C1) in terms of (non)existence of certain joint distributions involving measurements made in several mutually exclusive contexts; (C2) in terms of relationship between factual measurements in a given context and counterfactual measurements that could be made if one used other contexts; and (C3) in terms of (non)existence of 'hidden variables' that determine the outcomes of all factually performed measurements. It is generally believed that the three meanings are equivalent, but the issues involved are not entirely transparent. Thus, arguments have been offered that C2 may have nothing to do with C1, and the traditional formulation of C1 itself encounters difficulties when measurement outcomes in a contextual system are treated as random variables. I show that if C1 is formulated within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, the notion of a probabilistic coupling, the core mathematical tool of CbD, subsumes both counterfactual values and 'hidden variables'. In the latter case, a coupling itself can be viewed as a maximally parsimonious choice of a hidden variable. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.
Counterfactual reasoning plays a crucial role in exploring hypothetical scenarios, by comparing some consequent under conditions identical except as results from a differing antecedent. David Lewis' well-known analysis evaluates counterfactuals using a hierarchy of desiderata. These were, however, built upon a deterministic classical framework, and whether it could be generalized to indeterministic quantum theory has been an open question. In this paper, we propose a formalism for quantum counterfactuals in which antecedents are measurement settings. Unlike other approaches, it non-trivially answers questions like: "Given that a photon-detector, observing an atom's fluorescence, clicked at a certain time, what would a field-quadrature detector have measured, if it had been used instead?"