G. E. M. Anscombe

Wiseman, Rachael

doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0330

Cited by 3 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter, however, deny that there are really two different theorems, claiming that in his 1964 paper Bell used 'locality' to mean LOCAL CAUSALITY, and that from it he derived PREDETERMINATION 3 rather than assuming it. I have argued in depth [4,11] that this is a misrepresentation of what Bell proved in 1964.…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…[15,16] with Refs. [4,11]). However, by our reading, Bell is quite clear: the requirement of locality [is] more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system This is of course the positive form of the final notion in the first quote in this section, and Bell states the same assumption (the irrelevance of Alice's measurement choice to Bob's outcome) twice more in the paper.…”

Section: Bell's 1964 Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell

Wiseman

Cavalcanti

2016

The Frontiers Collection

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Bell's theorem" can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976. His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the joint assumptions of LOCALITY and PREDETERMI-NATION. His 1976 theorem is their incompatibility with the single property of LO-CAL CAUSALITY. This is contrary to Bell's own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with the assumption of LOCAL CAUSALITY, even if not by that name. Although the two Bell's theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not. Hence, the earlier and later theorems suggest quite different conclusions, embraced by operationalists and realists, respectively. The key issue is whether LOCALITY or LOCAL CAUSALITY is the appropriate notion emanating from RELATIVISTIC CAUSALITY, and this rests on one's basic notion of causation. For operationalists the appropriate notion is what is here called the Principle of AGENT-CAUSATION, while for realists it is REICHENBACH's Principle of common cause. By breaking down the latter into even more basic Postulates, it is possible to obtain a version of Bell's theorem in which each camp could reject one assumption, happy that the remaining assumptions reflect its weltanschauung. Formulating Bell's theorem in terms of causation is fruitful not just for attempting to reconcile the two camps, but also for better describing the ontology of different quantum interpretations and for more deeply understanding the implications of Bell's marvellous work.

show abstract

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Bell's 1964 Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell

Wiseman

Cavalcanti

2016

The Frontiers Collection

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For another discussion of causal concepts underlying Bell's theorem and further motivation for the idea that agent-centric notions are required to maintain compatibility with relativistic causality is given in a recent paper of Wiseman and the author [7].…”

Section: Quantum Causal Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent article [7], Howard Wiseman and the author have presented a reformulation of Bell's theorem in terms of causal notions, and proposed a way forward for the debate between operationalists and realists. In that formulation, Bell's theorem was shown to be derived from four Axioms and four Principles the definitions of which can be agreed upon by operationalists and realists alike, with the disagreement being merely about which of those to drop in light of the contradiction with observed phenomena.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It states that if two events are correlated, then either one causes the other, or there exists a common cause such that conditioned on it, the events become uncorrelated. In [7] this principle was separated as a principle of Common Causes, requiring that two sets of events A and B are correlated only if one causes the other or there exists a set of common causes C that explains the correlation (and where the term explains is left to be defined by further principles); and a principle of Decorrelating Explanation, by which a set of causes C explains the correlation between A and B only if those variables are left uncorrelated by conditioning on C. By dropping the requirement of Decorrelating Explanation, the operationalist can thus keep relativistic causal structure. But Reichenbach's principle is at the basis of the application of causal reasoning in the sciences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bell's theorem and the measurement problem: reducing two mysteries to one?

Cavalcanti

2016

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of a recent reformulation of Bell's theorem from causal principles by Howard Wiseman and the author, I argue that the conflict between quantum theory and relativity brought up by Bell's work can be softened by a revision of our classical notions of causation. I review some recent proposals for a quantum theory of causation that make great strides towards that end, but highlight a property that is shared by all those theories that would not have satisfied Bell's realist inclinations. They require (implicitly or explicitly) agent-centric notions such as "controllables" and "uncontrollables", or "observed" and "unobserved". Thus they relieve the tensions around Bell's theorem by highlighting an issue more often associated with another deep conceptual issue in quantum theory: the measurement problem. Rather than rejecting those terms, however, I argue that we should understand why they seem to be, at least at face-value, needed in order to reach compatibility between quantum theory and relativity. This seems to suggest that causation, and thus causal structure, are emergent phenomena, and lends support to the idea that a resolution of the conflict between quantum theory and relativity necessitates a solution to the measurement problem. arXiv:1602.07404v1 [quant-ph]

show abstract

Ethics and Action Theory

Sandis

2022

The Oxford Handbook of Elizabeth Anscombe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter compares the general form and state of moral philosophy during the first half of the twentieth century (section 21.1) to how it stands today (section 21.3). These two overviews serve as the bread of a GEMA-filled sandwich. Section 21.2 accordingly considers Anscombe’s criticisms of ‘modern moral philosophy’ from Sidgwick to Ross. Anyone in sympathy with the general line of her criticisms must concede that the state of moral philosophy was in far better shape in the decades before she wrote her seminal 1958 paper than it has been ever since. Ironically, contemporary moral philosophy has become what it is partly due to Anscombe’s own unintended role in influencing (i) the formation of ‘virtue theory’ as yet another position within normative ethics and (ii) the fashioning of ‘moral psychology’ as an altogether distinct—and increasingly empirical— branch of moral philosophy.

show abstract

G. E. M. Anscombe

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell

Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell

Bell's theorem and the measurement problem: reducing two mysteries to one?

Ethics and Action Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About