dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaLocality, Independence and the Pro-Liberty Bell
| Authors | Huw Price |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | quant-ph/9602020 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9602020 |
Abstract
Construed as an argument against hidden variable theories, Bell's Theorem assumes that hidden variables would be independent of future measurement settings. This Independence Assumption (IA) is rarely questioned. Bell considered relaxing it to avoid non-locality, but thought that the resulting view left no room for free will. However, Bell seems to have failed to distinguish two different strategies for giving up IA. One strategy takes for granted the Principle of the Common Cause, which requires that a correlation between hidden variables and measurement settings be explained by a joint correlation with some unknown factor in their common past. The other strategy rejects the Principle of the Common Cause, and argues that the required correlation might be due to the known interaction between the object system and the measuring device in their common future. Bell and most others who have discussed these issues have focussed on the former strategy, but because the two approaches have not been properly distinguished, it has not been well appreciated that there is a quite different way to relax IA. This paper distinguishes the two strategies, and argues that the latter is considerably more appealing than the former.
{
"annotation_id": "c5339b35-e9f2-4df1-a52b-d6b7f40c88b7",
"date_created": "2026-03-02T18:02:37.380000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:02:37.380000Z",
"file_hash": "8d5dfb7733bef3aef0e790c95fda5f5822433e150d029b7de605e6738960e957",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "Construed as an argument against hidden variable theories, Bell\u0027s Theorem\nassumes that hidden variables would be independent of future measurement\nsettings. This Independence Assumption (IA) is rarely questioned. Bell\nconsidered relaxing it to avoid non-locality, but thought that the resulting\nview left no room for free will. However, Bell seems to have failed to\ndistinguish two different strategies for giving up IA. One strategy takes for\ngranted the Principle of the Common Cause, which requires that a correlation\nbetween hidden variables and measurement settings be explained by a joint\ncorrelation with some unknown factor in their common past. The other strategy\nrejects the Principle of the Common Cause, and argues that the required\ncorrelation might be due to the known interaction between the object system and\nthe measuring device in their common future. Bell and most others who have\ndiscussed these issues have focussed on the former strategy, but because the\ntwo approaches have not been properly distinguished, it has not been well\nappreciated that there is a quite different way to relax IA. This paper\ndistinguishes the two strategies, and argues that the latter is considerably\nmore appealing than the former.",
"arxiv_id": "quant-ph/9602020",
"authors": [
"Huw Price"
],
"categories": [
"quant-ph"
],
"title": "Locality, Independence and the Pro-Liberty Bell",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9602020"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "2671ae6e-2f77-4442-9d66-e0933781bab2",
"id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}