A Stronger Bell Argument for (Some Kind of) Parameter Dependence

It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. This paper presents a new derivation of the inequalities from non-trivial non-local theories and formulates a stronger Bell argument excluding also these non-local theories. Taking into account all possible theories, the conclusion of this stronger argument provably is the strongest possible consequence from the violation of Bell inequalities on a qualitative probabilistic level (given usual background assumptions). Among the forbidden theories is a subset of outcome dependent theories showing that outcome dependence is not sufficient for explaining a violation of Bell inequalities. Non-local theories which can violate Bell inequalities (among them quantum theory) are rather characterised by the fact that at least one of the measurement outcomes in some sense (which is made precise) probabilistically depends both on its local as well as on its distant measurement setting ('parameter'). When Bell inequalities are found to be violated, the true choice is not 'outcome dependence or parameter dependence' but between two kinds of parameter dependences, one of them being what is usually called 'parameter dependence'. Against the received view established by Jarrett and Shimony that on a probabilistic level quantum non-locality amounts to outcome dependence, this result confirms and makes precise Maudlin's claim that some kind of parameter dependence is required.Comment: forthcoming in: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physic

A Stronger Bell Argument for Quantum Non-Locality

It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. This paper presents a stronger Bell argument which even forbids certain non-local theories. The remaining non-local theories, which can violate Bell inequalities, are characterised by the fact that at least one of the outcomes in some sense probabilistically depends both on its distant as well as on its local parameter. While this is not to say that parameter dependence in the usual sense necessarily holds, it shows that the received analysis of quantum non-locality as “outcome dependence or parameter dependence” is deeply misleading about what the violation of Bell inequalities implies

Evidence for Interactive Common Causes. Resuming the Cartwright-Hausman-Woodward Debate

The most serious candidates for common causes that fail to screen off (“interactive common causes”, ICCs) and thus violate the causal Markov condition (CMC) refer to quantum phenomena. In her seminal debate with Hausman and Woodward, Cartwright early on focussed on unfortunate non-quantum examples. Especially, Hausman and Woodward's redescriptions of quantum cases saving the CMC remain unchallenged. This paper takes up this lose end of the discussion and aims to resolve the debate in favour of Cartwright's position. It systematically considers redescriptions of ICC structures, inlcuding those by Hausman and Woodward, and explains why these do not provide an appropriate description, when quantum mechanics is true. It first shows that all cases of purported quantum ICCs are cases of entanglement and then, using the tools of causal modelling, it provides an analysis of the quantum mechanical formalism for the case that the collapse of entangled systems is best described as a causal model with an ICC

The Mereological Problem of Entanglement

It is well-known that the entangled quantum state of a composite object cannot be reduced to the states of its parts. This quantum holism provides a peculiar challenge to formulate an appropriate mereological model: When a system is in an entangled state, which objects are there on the micro and macro level, and which of the objects carries which properties? This paper chooses a modeling approach to answer these questions: It proceeds from a systematic overview of consistent mereological models for entangled systems and discusses which of them is compatible with the quantum mechanical evidence (where quantum states are understood realistically). It reveals that entangled quantum systems neither describe undivided wholes nor objects that stand in irreducible relations. The appropriate model assumes that the entangled property is an irreducible non-relational plural property carried collectively by the micro objects, while there is no macro object. In this sense, quantum holism is an instance of property holism, not of object holism

A taxonomy for the mereology of entangled quantum systems

The emerging field of quantum mereology considers part-whole relations in quantum systems. Entangled quantum systems pose a peculiar problem in the field, since their total states are not reducible to that of their parts. While there exist several established proposals for modelling entangled systems, like monistic holism or relational holism, there is considerable unclarity, which further positions are available. Using the lambda operator and plural logic as formal tools, we review and develop conceivable models and evaluate their consistency and distinctness. The main result is an exhaustive taxonomy of six distinct and precise models that both provide information about the mereological features as well as about the entangled property. The taxonomy is well-suited to serve as the basis for future systematic investigations

A stronger Bell argument for quantum non-locality

It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. In this paper I present a stronger Bell argument which even forbids certain non-local theories. The remaining non-local theories, which can violate Bell inequalities, are characterised by the fact that at least one of the outcomes in some sense probabilistically depends both on its distant as well as on its local parameter. While this is not to say that parameter dependence in the usual sense necessarily holds, it shows that the received analysis of quantum non-locality as “outcome dependence or parameter dependence” is deeply misleading about what the violation of Bell inequalities implies

Causal Graphs for EPR Experiments

We examine possible causal structures of experiments with entangled quantum objects. Previously, these structures have been obscured (i) by assuming a misleading probabilistic analysis of quantum non locality as 'Outcome Dependence or Parameter Dependence' and (ii) by directly associating these correlations with influences. Here we try to overcome these shortcomings: (i) we proceed from a recent stronger Bell argument (Näger 2012), which provides an appropriate probabilistic description, and (ii) apply the rigorous methods of causal graph theory. Against the standard view that there is only an influence between the measurement outcomes, we show that there must be an influence from one setting (parameter) to its distant outcome: EPR correlations can only come about if one of the outcomes is a common effect of both settings. Our discussion makes explicit under which assumptions similar conclusions from information theoretic considerations (Maudlin 2002, ch. 6; Pawlowski et al. 2010) can be interpreted causally

A Stronger Bell Argument for Quantum Non-Locality

It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. This paper presents a stronger Bell argument which even forbids certain non-local theories. Among these excluded non-local theories are those whose only non-local connection is a probabilistic (or functional) dependence between the space-like separated measurement outcomes of EPR/B experiments (a subset of outcome dependent theories). In this way, the new argument shows that the result of the received Bell argument, which requires just any kind of non-locality, is inappropriately weak. Positively, the remaining non-local theories, which can violate Bell inequalities (among them quantum theory), are characterized by the fact that at least one of the measurement outcomes in some sense probabilistically depends both on its local as well as on its distant measurement setting (probabilistic Bell contextuality). Whether an additional dependence between the outcomes holds, is irrelevant for the question whether a certain theory can violate Bell inequalities. This new concept of quantum non-locality is considerably tighter and more informative than the one following from the usual Bell argument. We prove that (given usual background assumptions) the result of the stronger Bell argument presented here is the strongest possible consequence from the violation of Bell inequalities on a qualitative probabilistic level

A Stronger Bell Argument for (Some Kind of) Parameter Dependence

It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. This paper presents a stronger Bell argument which even forbids certain non-local theories. The conclusion of the stronger Bell argument presented here provably is the strongest possible consequence from the violation of Bell inequalities on a qualitative probabilistic level (given usual background assumptions). Since among the excluded non-local theories are those whose only non-local probabilistic connection is a dependence between the space-like separated measurement outcomes of EPR/B experiments (a subset of outcome dependent theories), outcome dependence cannot be the crucial dependence for explaining a violation of Bell inequalities. Rather, the remaining non-local theories, which can violate Bell inequalities (among them quantum theory), are characterized by the fact that at least one of the measurement outcomes in some sense (which is made precise) probabilistically depends both on its local as well as on its distant measurement setting. While this is not to say that what is usually called parameter dependence has to hold, some kind of dependence on the distant parameter cannot be avoided. Against the received view, established by Jarrett and Shimony, that on a probabilistic level quantum non-locality amounts to outcome dependence, this result confirms and makes precise Maudlin's claim that some kind of parameter dependence is required

Physical Composition by Bonding

Van Inwagen proposes that besides simples only living organisms exist as composite objects. This paper suggests expanding van Inwagen’s ontology by also accepting composite objects in the case that physical bonding occurs (plus some extra conditions). Such objects are not living organ-isms but rather physical bodies. They include (approximately) the complete realm of inanimate ordinary objects, like rocks and tables, as well as inanimate scientific objects, like atoms and mol-ecules, the latter filling the ontological gap between simples and organisms in van Inwagen’s origi-nal picture. We thus propose a compositional pluralism claiming that composition arises if and on-ly if bonding or life occurs