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

arXiv:quant-ph/0410051 · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics

Comparing causality principles

Joe Henson C

Published Aug 3, 2005• 41 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1016/j.shpsb.2005.04.003

Related papers

Confounding causality principles: Comment on Rédei and San Pedro's “Distinguishing causality principles”

Joe Henson C

arXiv:1210.1463•Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Jan 21, 2013•6 citations

Distinguishing causality principles

Miklós Rédei, Iñaki San Pedro

arXiv:1204.4288•Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Apr 16, 2012•8 citations

Bell's local causality for philosophers

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Péter Vecsernyés

This paper is the philosopher-friendly version of our more technical work (Hofer-Szabó and Vecsernyés, 2014). It aims to give a clear-cut definition of Bell's notion of local causality. Having provided a framework, called local physical theory, which integrates probabilistic and spatiotemporal concepts, we formulate the notion of local causality and relate it to other locality and causality concepts. Then we compare Bell's local causality with Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and relate both to the Bell inequalities. We find a nice parallelism: both local causality and the Common Cause Principle are more general notions than captured by the Bell inequalities. Namely, Bell inequalities cannot be derived neither from local causality nor from a common cause unless the local physical theory is classical or the common cause is commuting, respectively.

•Jan 1, 2014•2 citations

Quantum Physics and God’s Agency

Hamidreza Shakerin

The common understanding of Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle and indeterminism in quantum physics is that it is a negation of causal relationships. Having the relationship between the existence of God and causality in mind, some advocates of ontological naturalism assert that by negating causality in modern physics, there remains no room for belief in God as the necessary cause of the world and His actions in it. To examine this claim, I will explain briefly the quantum theory, Copenhagen interpretation of uncertainty principle, and its epistemological position. Next, I will investigate its relationship with causality and divine actions. The article concludes that not only is there no conflict between Copenhagen interpretation and causality, but the former is based on the latter and has complete coherence with the belief in God and His actions in the world. Compared to classical physics, its consistency with direct and special divine actions in the world is more.

•Feb 1, 2022•0 citations

Locality and Causality Principles

Gábor Hofer‐Szabó, Péter Vecsernyés

SpringerBriefs in philosophy•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Causality and Complementarity

David Favrholdt

Niels Bohr•Jan 1, 1999•1 citation
This paper is the philosopher-friendly version of our more technical work (Hofer-Szabó and Vecsernyés, 2014). It aims to give a clear-cut definition of Bell's notion of local causality. Having provided a framework, called local physical theory, which integrates probabilistic and spatiotemporal concepts, we formulate the notion of local causality and relate it to other locality and causality concepts. Then we compare Bell's local causality with Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle and relate both to the Bell inequalities. We find a nice parallelism: both local causality and the Common Cause Principle are more general notions than captured by the Bell inequalities. Namely, Bell inequalities cannot be derived neither from local causality nor from a common cause unless the local physical theory is classical or the common cause is commuting, respectively.
The common understanding of Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle and indeterminism in quantum physics is that it is a negation of causal relationships. Having the relationship between the existence of God and causality in mind, some advocates of ontological naturalism assert that by negating causality in modern physics, there remains no room for belief in God as the necessary cause of the world and His actions in it. To examine this claim, I will explain briefly the quantum theory, Copenhagen interpretation of uncertainty principle, and its epistemological position. Next, I will investigate its relationship with causality and divine actions. The article concludes that not only is there no conflict between Copenhagen interpretation and causality, but the former is based on the latter and has complete coherence with the belief in God and His actions in the world. Compared to classical physics, its consistency with direct and special divine actions in the world is more.