Richard Andrew Healey

In his recent work, Michael Redhead (1986, 1987, 1989, 1990) has introduced a condition he calls robustness which, he argues, a relation must satisfy in order to be causal. He has used this condition to argue further that EPR-type correlations are neither the result of a direct causal connection between the correlated events, nor the result of a common cause associated with the source of the particle pairs which feature in these events. Andrew Elby (1992) has used this same condition as a premise in an independent argument for the conclusion that EPR-type correlations cannot be causally explained (except, perhaps, by a nonlocal hidden variable theory). I wish to argue here that robustness is itself too fragile a notion to support such conclusions

On a pragmatist view of quantum theory, a quantum state has the role of advising physically situated agents rather than representing the condition of physical systems. The advice concerns the cognitive significance of a magnitude claim S: σ has, locating the value of magnitude Q on system σ in set Δ of real numbers. The quantum state offers advice both on the content of a magnitude claim S and on its credibility, provided it has enough content. The advice is authoritative—anyone who both accepts quantum theory and agrees on the correct quantum state is bound to heed it. On this view, the content of a magnitude claim is a function of its place in a web of material inferences connecting it to other claims, and hence to perception and action. A quantum state offers advice on the content of a magnitude claim by controlling its place in this inferential web. It thereby adds a contextual element to the content even of claims about the properties of familiar objects like gross experimental apparatus and the moon. But by modeling the behavior of quantum states, quantum theory itself reassures us that only for claims about currently unfamiliar objects does the consequent modification of content amount to anything

Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics has been criticized for failing to account for what one experiences when performing quantum measurements. This paper investigates the extent of the general responsibility of physics to explain experiences, as distinct from the phenomena that produce them. The conclusions are that while no scientific theory can be required to explain experiences fully, a fundamental physical theory is required to explain how certain actual experiences are possible and that imposing this requirement on quantum mechanics under Everett's interpretation forces one to some perhaps unanticipated metaphysical extremes.