Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Taming Entanglement

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read EPR and Bell correlations are selection artifacts: preparing an experiment's initial state filters a larger, uncorrelated ensemble of histories.

desk verdict A clear, honest reframing of EPR/Bell correlations as preselection artifacts, with a genuinely new V-shaped extension, but the load-bearing flat measure for the Unpinned Regime remains stipulated and the W-shaped analogy does not supply it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15128 v2 pith:IBF7IAUI submitted 2025-07-20 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Huw Price , Ken Wharton This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.hist-ph
keywords entanglementEPRcorrelationsBellnonlocalityselectionbiasSimpson'sParadoxBerkson'scollider
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

EPR and Bell correlations, the text argues, are the same kind of statistical phenomenon as survivorship or hospital-admission bias: they appear because a subset of a larger, uncorrelated ensemble has been selected. Here the selecting is done by preparing the initial state of the experiment, which is preselection rather than postselection. That temporal detail matters, because it preserves the counterfactuals that make the EPR argument and Bell nonlocality feel so compelling. The paper ties the possibility of such preselection to the low-entropy early universe, and draws out new categories for causal modeling.

What carries the argument

The central object is a five-bit (or six-bit) 'tile' coding one run of a two-particle experiment: the initial-state bit C, the two setting bits a and b, and the two outcome bits A and B. Tiles collected from runs in which C is random—parallel and antiparallel equally weighted—are uncorrelated; fixing C by preselection yields the EPR correlations, and fixing one of the four Bell states yields Bell correlations. The paper names the preselected structure a Constrained Correlating Fork (ConCorrF), in contrast to a plain Correlating Fork (CorrF, the familiar collider), and locates the source of the constraint in the low-entropy past—what it calls the Unpinned Regime (UR) without it and the Pinned Regime with it.

What would settle it

A loophole-free delayed-choice entanglement-swapping experiment in which the future central measurement is unconstrained, yet the A–B correlations turn out to be counterfactually robust (for example, changing the setting at A changes the predicted outcome at B even after conditioning on the future outcome), would falsify the claim that unconstrained future vertices produce only fragile postselection artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the correlations in an EPR-Bohm experiment (and in Bell/CHSH experiments) are artifacts of how the experiment is set up. In a larger ensemble in which parallel and antiparallel spin preparations—or the four Bell states—occur with equal probability, the correlations wash out completely. An experimenter who prepares a particular initial state is preselecting a subensemble from that larger 'virtual' urn of possible histories, and because the selection happens before measurement, the resulting correlations are counterfactually robust: had the outcome at A been different, the outcome at B would have been different too. The same move explains Bell correlations, with the four Bell states playing the role of the parallel/antiparallel cases. By contrast, in delayed-choice entanglement-swapping experiments the central vertex lies in the future, so only postselection is available and the correlations are counterfactually fragile; the difference between the two cases is attributed to the low-entropy past, which licenses holding the past fixed.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that, absent the low-entropy past, all possible initial preparations occur with equal probability, so the larger virtual ensemble genuinely is uncorrelated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EPR and Bell correlations would no longer require a common cause or action at a distance; they would be preselection artifacts of initial-state preparation.
  • The counterfactuals behind the EPR argument and Bell nonlocality would receive a temporal explanation: they hold because the past is held fixed, ultimately owing to the low-entropy past.
  • Delayed-choice entanglement-swapping experiments, with the central measurement in the future, would yield only counterfactually fragile selection artifacts, so they would not by themselves support Bell nonlocality.
  • Fully randomized preparations over the complete set of Bell states would produce maximally mixed states with no observable correlations, and selecting one initial state would restore them, for the cases covered by the paper.
  • Causal modeling would gain two categories: correlating forks opening toward the future, and constrained correlating forks (ConCorrFs), with the associated notion of connection across a constrained collider.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the account is correct, then any experiment in which the initial preparation is deliberately randomized over a complete set of states should display no entanglement correlations in the aggregate; this is directly testable with current single-photon technology.
  • Editorial inference: the same preselection logic suggests that a final-state boundary condition imposed in a laboratory, not only a black hole singularity, should turn a future collider into a ConCorrF and restore counterfactually robust correlations—an experiment one could attempt with delayed-choice entanglement swapping plus a post-selected final-state constraint.
  • Editorial inference: the ConCorrF category may apply to classical contexts too, where the past is held fixed in counterfactual reasoning; the paper's framework implies that many ordinary 'common cause' explanations might be reinterpretable as preselection artifacts, a possibility the authors do not develop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that EPR and Bell correlations are selection artefacts: preparing a particular initial state amounts to preselecting a subensemble from a larger, uncorrelated 'virtual' ensemble of possible histories (the 'Unpinned Regime', UR, obtained by dropping the Past Hypothesis). The authors argue that because the selection is preselection rather than postselection, the resulting correlations remain counterfactually robust, distinguishing their proposed 'Constrained Correlating Fork' from ordinary collider bias. The argument proceeds through a classical urn model, an extension to Bell correlations, a comparison with delayed-choice entanglement swapping (the W-shaped case), and a density-matrix argument for generalization; it closes with implications for causal modeling.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a genuinely novel interpretation of EPR/Bell correlations as statistical selection effects rather than evidence of nonlocality, and it would introduce new categories (ConCorrF, constrained collider, predecessor bias) to causal modeling. The paper has real strengths: the urn-model arithmetic is straightforwardly correct; the density-matrix statements in §12 are textbook-level and accurate; the discussion of the DCES collider loophole in §10 is a useful synthesis of an existing literature; and the authors are unusually candid about their own assumptions and limitations (e.g., §6's admission that no justification for the flat measure has been given, and §12's concession that Hong-Ou-Mandel and which-way entanglement are not captured). However, the central explanatory claim is currently supported by construction rather than by independent evidence: the larger UR ensemble is defined, via a flat measure, so that selection reproduces the very correlations to be explained. The W-shaped case, offered as the needed independent source of flatness, does not provide that independence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§10 (with §5, §6, §8)] The W-shaped argument does not supply an independent source of the flat measure for the V case. The claim at the end of §10 that 'the raw QM probabilities gave us the flat distribution we needed' holds only because the two sources S1 and S2 have already been prepared in specific maximally entangled states; that preparation is precisely the kind of Initial Control whose selection role the proposal aims to explain. If the source states were instead drawn from a Haar-random distribution over product states, conditioning on M=0 would yield a product state at A and B, not Bell correlations, and the distribution of M outcomes would not have the required robustness. The time-symmetry inference from W to V is therefore unsupported, and the existence and flat measure of the Unpinned Regime remain a stipulation, as the paper itself concedes in §6 ('We haven't yet offered a justification for thinking of this as an equally likely option, by the universe's lights'). The larger ensemble is defined so that selection reproduces the input correlations, so the central claim is supported by construction.
  2. [§3.1–§3.2 and §9] The transfer from the urn model to real EPR/Bell experiments assumes a deterministic relation (A+B+C=0 mod 2 for same settings, or its Bell analogue) that fixes outcomes for all settings in each tile. In actual quantum experiments, fixing the initial state C does not determine individual outcomes; quantum mechanics supplies only probabilities for the correlated outcomes. Consequently, the preselection of C does not by itself make counterfactuals of the form 'if the A outcome had differed, the B outcome would have differed' true; that counterfactual requires an additional assumption of counterfactual definiteness, which the paper explicitly brackets in §2 (note 2). The toy model therefore does not establish that preselection in a real experiment yields counterfactually robust EPR or Bell correlations; it presupposes the existence of a definite-outcome structure that Bell's theorem makes problematic.
  3. [§12] The density-matrix argument is a restatement of the construction rather than a general derivation. The statement that 'a completely uncertain preparation (over a sufficiently large number of possibilities) will always result in a maximally mixed state' presupposes a flat prior over the relevant preparation states; it shows that if the larger UR ensemble is assigned that measure, correlations vanish by averaging, but it does not justify that measure physically. The same paragraph concedes that the proposal does not capture Hong-Ou-Mandel or 'which-way' entanglement. As written, the proposal generalizes only to jointly prepared states with an initial control, not to entanglement in general, which is a significant scope limitation relative to the abstract's unqualified claim about 'EPR and Bell correlations' and the paper's title.
  4. [§7] The entire preselection/postselection distinction on which the ConCorrF analysis rests depends on the Past Hypothesis grounding an asymmetry in counterfactual reasoning (past held fixed, future open). The paper says it 'will assume for present purposes that these proposals are substantially correct.' Since this is a load-bearing premise, the central claim is conditional on a substantive thesis in statistical mechanics. The paper should either provide a defense of this step or explicitly state that the main conclusion is conditional on the truth of that thesis; as it stands, the abstract and §5 present the conclusion unconditionally.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§8] The sentence 'It is is provisional because...' contains a duplicated 'is'.
  2. [§9] 'the experimeters again choose binary settings' should read 'experimenters'.
  3. [Figure 3 reference (in §3.1)] The text repeatedly refers to Figure 3, but the figure itself is not visible in the version I reviewed; please ensure it is included in the published version.
  4. [§13.5 and references] The name is spelled 'Horowitz-Maladacena' in §13.5; the standard spelling is 'Horowitz-Maldacena'.
  5. [Footnote 6] Footnote 6 contains the doubled phrase 'It has been has been made'; please correct.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The central selection-artefact claim reduces to conditioning a stipulated uniform mixture on the very preparation whose role it purports to explain; the W-shaped flatness invoked to justify the mixture itself presupposes prepared entangled sources.

  1. self definitional [§12, 'Does the proposal generalize?']
    "In QM it is standard to use a 'density matrix', ρ, to represent states with an uncertain preparation. In this framework, it is easy to show that a completely uncertain preparation (over a sufficiently large number of possibilities) will always result in what is known as a 'maximally mixed state'. Such states have exactly the properties required here; there are no correlations which can be observed in a maximally-mixed state. Yet, if one selects one particular preparation state |ψ⟩, the density matrix must take the form ρ = |ψ⟩⟨ψ|, which can never be maximally mixed."

    The super-ensemble is defined as the equal-probability mixture over preparation states, i.e. the maximally mixed state. The absence of correlations in that mixture and the presence of correlations in the subensemble with fixed |ψ⟩ are both true by the definitions of a density matrix and of conditioning. 'Selecting one particular preparation state' is exactly the operation whose explanatory role is at issue, so the conclusion that initial control is 'entirely responsible' restates the input: conditioning on having prepared the entangled state yields that state's correlations.

  2. other [§10, 'Does the proposal work the other way up?']
    "In generating the V-based urn models, we put the initial distribution over the initial states in by hand. In the W-based case, as we just noted, there is no need to do that. The raw QM probabilities gave us the flat distribution we needed. By time-symmetry, this suggests that the same will be true of the V cases in UR, answering the challenge we raised in §5 about the source of the measure."

    The flat M-outcome distribution in the W case is claimed as independent evidence for the flat measure in UR, but it is a consequence of the two sources S1 and S2 being prepared in specific entangled states before the Bell measurement. Those preparations are Initial Control of exactly the kind whose selection role the proposal is trying to explain. If the source states were instead drawn from an unbiased UR measure, the M statistics would not retain the required flatness and postselecting M=0 would not produce Bell correlations at A and B. The 'by time-symmetry' inference therefore transfers a flatness that is itself an input from prepared initial states, so it does not answer the §5 challenge; it presupposes the very preselection the paper seeks to ground in Penrose's pin.

full rationale

The paper itself flags the load-bearing gap. In §6 it concedes: 'We haven't yet offered a justification for thinking of this as an equally likely option, by the universe's lights, let alone described how it generalises to other kinds of experiment.' The attempted generalization in §12 is definitional: a uniform mixture over preparations is the maximally mixed state, and conditioning on a fixed preparation |ψ⟩ restores exactly the correlations of |ψ⟩. That is the mathematics of conditional ensembles, not a derivation from the Past Hypothesis; the 'larger, uncorrelated, virtual ensemble' is stipulated to be uncorrelated. The W-shaped case in §10 is meant to supply the measure independently, but its flat distribution is itself produced by the prepared entangled states at S1 and S2, which are the same kind of initial control under investigation. The paper's own admission in §12 that Hong-Ou-Mandel and which-way entanglement are not captured further shows that the proposed reduction is not forced by quantum mechanics alone. There is genuine independent content in the preselection-versus-postselection counterfactual analysis and in the comparison with the Horowitz-Maldacena boundary condition, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Nevertheless, the central claim that EPR and Bell correlations are 'selection artefacts of this kind' rests on a uniform-mixture input that is chosen so that selection reproduces the input correlations; the core explanatory step is circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on one hypothetical construction (UR) with a hand-chosen flat measure, two domain assumptions about PH and counterfactuals (admitted as assumptions in §7), and standard density-matrix facts (§12). No free parameters are fitted to data in the usual sense, but the flat prior over initial states is a parameter chosen to make the argument work. No new physical entities are postulated; the invented entities are an imaginary regime and a piece of terminology.

free parameters (2)
  • flat prior over initial states in UR (distribution over C) = 1/2 each for parallel/antiparallel (EPR case); 1/4 each for the four Bell states (CHSH case)
    Chosen by hand so that the larger ensemble is uncorrelated and the correlations wash out (§5). The paper admits there is no justification for equiprobability by the universe's lights (§6) and appeals only to time-symmetry in §10.
  • time-symmetric (uniform Liouville-type) measure on UR histories = uniform measure over trajectories (per Carroll 2013, quoted in §6)
    The natural measure for statistics in UR on which the washing-out property depends (§8, §12(i)); it is assumed, not derived.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Past Hypothesis (PH): the universe began in an extremely low-entropy macrostate
    Assumed substantially correct in §7; PH is the ultimate source of Initial Control and of the counterfactual asymmetry the argument requires.
  • ad hoc to paper The Unpinned Regime (UR) is a legitimate statistical ensemble for analyzing quantum experiments
    UR is introduced in §7 as a universe with the same laws but no PH; §7-8 argue that Boltzmann-Brains-style reasoning licenses discussing experiments in UR, but UR is a hypothetical construct defined for this argument.
  • domain assumption Counterfactual asymmetry is grounded in PH: the past is held fixed, the future is open
    Assumed in §7: "We will assume for present purposes that these proposals are substantially correct." The preselection-vs-postselection counterfactual distinction, the core of the paper, depends on it.
  • standard math Standard density-matrix facts: a uniform mixture over a spanning set of pure states is maximally mixed
    Invoked in §12 to argue that an uncontrolled preparation removes all correlations and that selecting |ψ> restores them.
  • domain assumption The intuitive EPR counterfactuals are meaningful
    Stated in §2, footnote 2: "We set such views aside here, taking for granted the intuitive counterfactuals of the EPR case."
  • standard math Time-symmetric microscopic dynamics
    Standard in the Boltzmann program invoked in §7 (Loschmidt's reversibility objection); required for the UR thought experiment.
invented entities (2)
  • Unpinned Regime (UR)
    purpose: Provides the larger, uncorrelated virtual ensemble of possible histories from which actual experiments are said to preselect their initial states
    Explicitly hypothetical: a universe with the same laws as our own, except that it is not governed by PH (§7). Its flat measure is chosen to guarantee the washing out of correlations (§5), and it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper.
  • Constrained Correlating Fork (ConCorrF)
    purpose: Conceptual category: a correlating fork whose vertex value is fixed by an outside constraint, claimed to restore counterfactual robustness
    A definitional re-labeling of the authors' prior constrained collider concept (Price and Wharton 2021b, 2022); it classifies correlations but makes no new predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Taming Entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IBF7IAUI

@misc{pith2026250715128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Taming Entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IBF7IAUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15128}
}
read the original abstract

In statistics and causal modeling it is common for a selection process to induce correlations in a subset of an uncorrelated ensemble. We propose that EPR and Bell correlations are selection artefacts of this kind. The selection process is preparation of the initial state of the relevant experiments. Choice of initial state amounts to preselection of a subensemble of a larger, uncorrelated, virtual ensemble of possible histories. Because it is preselection rather than postselection, the resulting correlations support the intuitive counterfactuals of the EPR argument and Bell nonlocality. In this respect, and in its temporal orientation, the case differs from familiar forms of selection bias. Given the ubiquity of quantum entanglement, the result may thus be of independent interest to students of causal modeling. The paper concludes with a discussion of its novel implications in that field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15128 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. EPR-Bohm experiment with random inputs at C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pentagonal tile It is easy to confirm that there are no correlations between the A-side values and the B-side values shown on the tiles, as they emerge from the urn. The EPR correlations have been washed out by the random mix of correlated and anticorrelated cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Frequencies for the EPR-Bohm urn model Suppose that a particular tile shows identical A and B settings and identical A and B outcomes. Let’s ask a counterfactual question. If instead we’d drawn a tile with the same settings but a different A outcome, would we also have found a different B outcome? No, because there is another possibility, equally likely. We could instead have found a tile with a different bit at C, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A common cause the two subpopulations. Put like this, the idea is unremarkable. We could imagine much simpler cases. The interesting aspects of such cases often emerge from selection effects. These arise when the method by which a subpopulation is selected inter￾sects …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A common effect, or collider are variables in a DAG where two causal arrows collide. The correlation induced by conditioning on a collider is called collider bias. The same phenomenon is also called Berkson’s bias, or Berkson’s paradox. Berkson was a Mayo Clinic statis…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Berkson’s bias words, A=H and B=H are now negatively correlated. This correlation is a selection artefact: it appears because we have selected a particular subset of the class of all possible outcomes. We could represent this case as conditioning on a common effect, by…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Penrose on quantum measurement case in which failure to recognise the role played by control of initial conditions leads to confusion in QM. In this well-known case the confusion, surprisingly, is on the part of Roger Penrose. One of the advantages of the case for us i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Penrose on the Past Hypothesis universe24 – the mother of all libraries, to adapt a phrase from [Albert 2000, 118], or the mother of all preselections. It is difficult to convey how big a restriction on the space of possible trajectories PH needs to be. [Penrose 1989, …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Generic V-shaped Bell experiment with preparation in state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The W-shaped case with postselection for outcome 0 at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: W case with outcome 0 imposed by a boundary constraint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Three-way control, V and W cases In exploring connections between conventional retrocausal models and the present proposal, it may be helpful to think of the variable at C or M as being influenced in three directions: two converging arrows to the central vertex of the…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A collider (‘Death in Damascus’) called Death in Damascus case [Gibbard & Harper 1978]. Suppose that you and Death are each deciding where to travel tomorrow ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bell Correlations and Selection Bias

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Bell correlations are selection artefacts induced by sampling methods, removing any tension with relativity or realism.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Time and Chance, Cambridge, MA: HUP

    Albert, D., 2000. Time and Chance, Cambridge, MA: HUP

    2000

  2. [2]

    Are Retrocausal Accounts of Entanglement Unnaturally Fine-Tuned?

    Almada, D., Ch'ng, K., Kintner, S. & Wharton, K. Are retrocausal accounts of entanglement unnaturally fine-tuned? arXiv:1510.03706 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Bell Inequality Violation and Relativity of Pre- and Postselection

    Bacciagaluppi, G. & Hermens, R., 2021. Bell inequality violation and relativity of pre- and postselection. arXiv:2002.03935

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A chat with Penrose, June 10, 1996

    Baez, John, 1996. A chat with Penrose, June 10, 1996. Blog post. Accessed 17 May 2024 at math.ucr.edu/home/baez/penrose.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/penrose.html

    1996

  5. [5]

    Bell, J. S. Atomic-cascade photons and quantum-mechanical nonlocality. Reprinted in [105--110] Bell04

  6. [6]

    S., 1964

    Bell, J. S., 1964. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195--200, reprinted in Bell04

    1964

  7. [7]

    S., 2004

    Bell, J. S., 2004. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

    2004

  8. [8]

    Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data

    Berkson, J., 1946. Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data. Biometrics Bulletin, 2, 47--53

    1946

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Profiles, Princeton University Press

    Bernstein, Jeremy, 1991. Quantum Profiles, Princeton University Press

    1991

  2. [10]

    Quantum Theory

    Bohm, D., 1951. Quantum Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

    1951

  3. [11]

    Quantum correlations and the measurement problem, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53, 3346–3369

    Bub, J., 2013. Quantum correlations and the measurement problem, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53, 3346–3369. DOI=10.1007/s10773-013-1695-z

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Cosmology and the Past Hypothesis

    Carroll, Sean M., 2013. Cosmology and the Past Hypothesis. Blog post. Accessed 10 May 2024 at: www.preposterous\-universe.com/blog/2013/07/09/cosmology-and-the-past-hypo\-the\-sis/comment-page-2/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/07/09/cosmology-and-the-past-hypot...

    2013

  5. [13]

    and Spekkens, R

    Catani, L., Leifer, M., Schmid, D. and Spekkens, R. W., 2023. Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory. Quantum 7, 1119. arXiv:2111.13727 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti. Probabilistic theories with purification. Physical Review A 81(6), 062348

  7. [15]

    Scientific Explanation in Quantum Theory

    Clifton, R., 1998. Scientific Explanation in Quantum Theory. Preprint. Available at: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/91/ https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/91/

    1998

  8. [16]

    Coecke, Bob. 2014. Terminality implies non-signalling. arXiv:1405.3681

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider

    Cole, S., Platt, R., Schisterman, E., Chu, H., Westreich, D., Richardson, D., Poole, C. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39, 417--420. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp334

    doi

  10. [18]

    and Howard, M.E., 2021

    Czeisler, M.É., Wiley, J.F., Czeisler, C.A., Rajaratnam, S.M.W. and Howard, M.E., 2021. Uncovering survivorship bias in longitudinal mental health surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 30:e45. doi: 10.1017/S204579602100038X

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    & Martens, H., 1994

    de Muynck, W.M., De Baere, W. & Martens, H., 1994. Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness. Foundations of Physics 24, 1589--1664. doi.org/10.1007/BF02054787

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    Delayed-choice experiments and the metaphysics of entanglement

    Egg, M., 2013. Delayed-choice experiments and the metaphysics of entanglement. Foundations of Physics, 43, 1124--1135

    2013

  13. [21]

    and Rosen, N., 1935

    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N., 1935. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review 47, 777–780

    1935

  14. [22]

    Statistical Mechanics and the Asymmetry of Counterfactual Dependence

    Elga, Adam. Statistical Mechanics and the Asymmetry of Counterfactual Dependence. Philosophy of Science 68:313--324

  15. [23]

    Taming the delayed choice quantum eraser

    Fankhauser, J., 2019. Taming the delayed choice quantum eraser. Quanta 8, 44--56. arXiv:1707.07884

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    BJPS, 69:3, 745–774

    Quantum causal models, faithfulness and retrocausality. BJPS, 69:3, 745–774. arXiv:1506.08925 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Journal of Philosophy, 118, 28--42

    A sideways look at faithfulness for quantum correlations. Journal of Philosophy, 118, 28--42. arXiv:2009.09750 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Remarks on a Structural Account of Scientific Explanation

    Felline, L., 2010. Remarks on a Structural Account of Scientific Explanation. In Suárez, M., Dorato, M., Rédei, M. (eds) EPSA Philosophical Issues in the Sciences. Springer, Dordrecht

    2010

  19. [27]

    & Braunecker, B., 2010

    Ferrari, C. & Braunecker, B., 2010. Entanglement, which-way measurements, and a quantum erasure. American Journal of Physics 78, 792–795. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3369921

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    & Evans, P., 2019

    Friederich, S. & Evans, P., 2019. Retrocausality in quantum mechanics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition); Zalta, Edward (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/qm-retro\-causality/ http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entr...

    2019

  21. [29]

    Does a low-entropy constraint prevent us from influencing the past? In Ernst, G

    Frisch, Mathias, 2007. Does a low-entropy constraint prevent us from influencing the past? In Ernst, G. & H\"uttemann, A., eds., Time, Chance and Reduction: Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 13--33

    2007

  22. [30]

    Demystifying the delayed choice experiments

    Gaasbeek, B., 2010. Demystifying the delayed choice experiments. arXiv:1007.3977

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    and Harper, W., 1978

    Gibbard, A. and Harper, W., 1978. Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In C. Hooker, J. Leach and E. McClennen (eds.), Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory, Dordrecht: Reidel, 125--162

    1978

  24. [32]

    & Hoefer, C

    Gömöri, M. & Hoefer, C. Classicality and Bell’s theorem. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13, 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00531-y

    doi

  25. [33]

    Timelike entanglement for delayed-choice entanglement swapping, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 68, 16--22

    Glick, D. Timelike entanglement for delayed-choice entanglement swapping, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 68, 16--22

  26. [34]

    Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons

    Giustina, M., Versteegh, M.A., Wengerowsky, S., Handsteiner, J., Hochrainer, A., Phelan, K., et al, 2015. Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons. Physical review letters 115(25), 250401. arxiv:1511.03190

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Time symmetry in operational theories

    Hardy, L. Time symmetry in operational theories. arXiv:2104.00071

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    The no boundary condition and the arrow of time

    Hawking, S. The no boundary condition and the arrow of time. In Halliwell, Perez-Mercader, and Zurek (eds), Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry, Cambridge University Press, 346--357

  29. [37]

    Quantum theory: a pragmatist approach

    Healey, R. Quantum theory: a pragmatist approach. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 729--771

  30. [38]

    E., Reiserer, A., Kalb, N., Blok, M

    Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dreau, A. E., Reiserer, A., Kalb, N., Blok, M. S., et al, 2015. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682--686. arXiv:1508.05949

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    and Michielsen, K., 2016

    Hess, K., Raedt, H. and Michielsen, K., 2016. Counterfactual Definiteness and Bell’s Inequality. Journal of Modern Physics 7, 1651-1660. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2016.713150

    2016

  32. [40]

    & Hossenfelder, S

    Hance, J.R. & Hossenfelder, S. Bell’s theorem allows local theories of quantum mechanics. Nature Physics 18, 1382. doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01831-5

    doi

  33. [41]

    and Rédei, M., 2021

    Hitchcock, C. and Rédei, M., 2021. Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Zalta, E. (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/physics-Rpcc/>

    2021

  34. [42]

    The Principle of the Common Cause

    Hofer-Szabó, G., Rédei, M., & Szabó, L., 2013. The Principle of the Common Cause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139094344

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    and Mandel, L., 1987

    Hong, C.K., Ou, Z.Y. and Mandel, L., 1987. Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Physical Review Letters 59, 2044

    1987

  36. [44]

    and Maldacena, J., 2004

    Horowitz, G. and Maldacena, J., 2004. The black hole final state. JHEP 0402:008. arXiv:hep-th/0310281

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    & Palmer, T

    Hossenfelder, S. & Palmer, T. Rethinking superdeterminism. Frontiers of Physics, 06 May 2020. doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139. arXiv:1912.06462

    2020

  38. [46]

    Bell’s theorem, ideology, and structural explanation

    Hughes, R.I.G., 1989. Bell’s theorem, ideology, and structural explanation. In Cushing J, McMullin J (eds) Philosophical consequences of quantum theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press

    1989

  39. [47]

    Theoretical Explanation

    Hughes, R.I.G., 1993. Theoretical Explanation. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 18, 132-153

    1993

  40. [48]

    & Katz, S., 1977

    Johnson, N. & Katz, S., 1977. Urn models and their application : an approach to modern discrete probability theory. New York: Wiley

    1977

  41. [49]

    & Pusey, M

    Leifer, M. & Pusey, M. Is a time symmetric interpretation of quantum theory possible without retrocausality? Proc. R. Soc. A, 2017, 473, 20160607. arXiv:1607.07871

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Time Symmetric Quantum Theory Without Retrocausality? A Reply to Tim Maudlin

    Leifer, M. Time Symmetric Quantum Theory Without Retrocausality? A Reply to Tim Maudlin. arXiv:1708.04364

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Unitarity of black hole evaporation in final-state projection models, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014, 126

    Lloyd, S & Preskill, J. Unitarity of black hole evaporation in final-state projection models, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014, 126. arXiv:1308.4209

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    The Mentaculus Vision

    Loewer, B., 2020. The Mentaculus Vision. In Allori, V., ed., Statistical Mechanics and Scientific Explanation (World Scientific), 3--29

    2020

  45. [53]

    Über die Zustand des Wärmegleichgewichtes eines Systems von Körpern mit Rücksicht auf die Schwerkraft

    Loschmidt, J., 1876. Über die Zustand des Wärmegleichgewichtes eines Systems von Körpern mit Rücksicht auf die Schwerkraft. Wiener Berichte 73: 128, 366

  46. [54]

    Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping

    Ma, X.-s., Zotter, S., Kofler, J., Ursin, R., Jennewein, T., Brukner, C., et al, 2012. Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping. Nature Physics 8, 479--484. arXiv:1203.4834

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics (3rd edn.)

    Maudlin, T. Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics (3rd edn.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell

  48. [56]

    What Bell did

    Maudlin, T. What Bell did. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 47, 424010. DOI 10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424010

    doi

  49. [57]

    Delayed-choice entanglement swapping experiments: no evidence for timelike entanglement

    Mjelva, J rn, 2024. Delayed-choice entanglement swapping experiments: no evidence for timelike entanglement. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 105, 138--148

    2024

  50. [58]

    The Sudoku universe

    Merali, Z.. The Sudoku universe. John Templeton Foundation, February 2022. https://www.templeton.org/news/the-sudoku-universe https://www.templeton.org/news/the-sudoku-universe

    2022

  51. [59]

    Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory

    Müller, Markus, 2020. Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory. Quantum 4, 301

    2020

  52. [60]

    & Shimony, A., 2021

    Myrvold, W., Marco G. & Shimony, A., 2021. Bell’s Theorem. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Zalta, E. (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ fall2021/entries/bell-theorem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/bell-theorem/

    2021

  53. [61]

    Norsen, T. John S. Bell’s concept of local causality. American Journal of Physics 79, 1261. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3630940

    doi

  54. [62]

    Reply To: Retrocausality is intrinsic to quantum mechanics

    Norsen, T. Reply To: Retrocausality is intrinsic to quantum mechanics. International Journal of Quantum Foundations. July 17, 2015. https://ijqf.org/forums/reply/2832 https://ijqf.org/forums/reply/2832

    2015

  55. [63]

    & Price, H

    Norsen, T. & Price, H. Lapsing quickly into fatalism: Bell on backward causation. Entropy, 23(2021), 251

    2021

  56. [64]

    The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics

    Penrose, Roger, 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    1989

  57. [65]

    The Road to Reality

    Penrose, Roger, 2004. The Road to Reality. London: Jonathan Cape

    2004

  58. [66]

    (ed), Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, 317--362

    Penrose, R., New physics for the Orch-OR consciousness proposal, in Gao, S. (ed), Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, 317--362

  59. [67]

    Delayed choice for entanglement swapping

    Peres, A. Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. Journal of Modern Optics, 47, 139--143

  60. [68]

    No future in black holes

    Perry, M., 2021. No future in black holes. arXiv:2106.03715

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Future Boundaries and the Black Hole Information Paradox

    Perry, M. Future Boundaries and the Black Hole Information Paradox. arXiv:2108.05744

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    C., 1911

    Pigou, A. C., 1911. Alcoholism and heredity. Westminster Gazette, 2nd February 1911. Reprinted in International Journal of Epidemiology, 51(2022), e227--e228. doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw340

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford University Press, New York

    Price, Huw, 1996. Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford University Press, New York

    1996

  64. [72]

    Time's arrow and Eddington's challenge

    Price, Huw, 2010. Time's arrow and Eddington's challenge. Séminaire Poincaré XV, Le Temps, 115--140. Accessible at www.bourbaphy.fr/\-price.pdf http://www.bourbaphy.fr/price.pdf

    2010

  65. [73]

    Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says ``maybe''

    Price, Huw. Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? How the quantum world says ``maybe''. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 43, 75--83. arXiv:1002.0906

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    W as the edge of a wedge: Bell correlations via constrained colliders

    Price, Huw. W as the edge of a wedge: Bell correlations via constrained colliders. arXiv:2404.13928 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    The time-asymmetry of causation

    Price, Huw & Weslake, Brad, 2010. The time-asymmetry of causation. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock and Peter Menzies (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Causation (OUP), 414--443

    2010

  68. [76]

    Disentangling the quantum world

    Price, Huw & Wharton, Ken, 2015. Disentangling the quantum world. Entropy 17:11, 7752--7767. arXiv:1508.01140

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Taming the quantum spooks

    Price, Huw & Wharton, Ken. Taming the quantum spooks. Aeon, 14 September 2016. https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance

    2016

  70. [78]

    & Wharton, K

    Price, H. & Wharton, K. A live alternative to quantum spooks. International Journal of Quantum Foundations, 6, 1--8. arXiv:1510.06712

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    Entanglement swapping and action at a distance

    Price, Huw & Wharton, Ken, 2021a. Entanglement swapping and action at a distance. Foundations of Physics, 51, 105. doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00511-3

    doi

  72. [80]

    Appendix to ArXiV version of PriceWharton21a

    Price, Huw & Wharton, Ken, 2021b. Appendix to ArXiV version of PriceWharton21a . arXiv:2101.05370v4 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Why entanglement? arXiv:2212.06986

    Price, Huw & Wharton, Ken, 2022. Why entanglement? arXiv:2212.06986

    2022 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Untangling entanglement

    Price, Huw & Wharton, Ken. Untangling entanglement. Aeon, 29 June 2023. https://aeon.co/essays/our-simple-magic-free-recipe-for-quantum-entanglement https://aeon.co/essays/our-simple-magic-free-recipe-for-quantum-entanglement

    2023

  75. [83]

    Reichenbach, Hans. 1956. The Direction of Time. Edited by Maria Reichenbach. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications

    1956

  76. [84]

    Agency in physics

    Rovelli, C., 2021. Agency in physics. In Claudio Calosi, Pierluigi Graziani, Davide Pietrini, Gino Tarozzi, eds., Experience, abstraction and the scientific image of the world: Festschrift for Vincenzo Fano. Franco Angeli editore. Available at arXiv:2007.05300

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Event-ready Bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes

    Rosenfeld, W., Burchardt, D., Garthoff, R., Redeker, K., Ortegel, N., Rau, M., & Weinfurter, H. Event-ready Bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010402. arXiv:1611.04604

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik

    Schrödinger, E., 1935a. Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften, 23, 807--812. English translation in Trim80 . doi:10.1007/BF01491891

    doi

  79. [87]

    Discussion of probability relations between separated systems

    Schrödinger, E., 1935b. Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31, 555--563

  80. [88]

    Strong loophole-free test of local realism

    Shalm, L.K., Meyer-Scott, E., Christensen, B.G., Bierhorst, P., Wayne, M.A., Stevens, M.J., et al, 2015. Strong loophole-free test of local realism. Physical Review Letters, 115(25), 250402. arxiv:1511.03189

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    `Conjunctive forks and temporally asymmetric inference', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 70: 1--23

    Sober, Elliott and Barrett, Martin, 1992. `Conjunctive forks and temporally asymmetric inference', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 70: 1--23

    1992

  82. [90]

    & Weinberger, N., 2021

    Sprenger, J. & Weinberger, N., 2021. Simpson's Paradox. In Zalta, E. (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition). <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ sum2021/entries/paradox-simpson/>

    2021

  83. [91]

    & Friedman, A., 2014

    Susskind, L. & Friedman, A., 2014. Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum, Basic Books

    2014

  84. [92]

    D., 1980

    Trimmer, J. D., 1980. The present situation in quantum mechanics: A translation of Schrödinger’s ‘cat paradox’ paper. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124: 3230--3338

    1980

  85. [93]

    Boltzmann’s Work in Statistical Physics

    Uffink, J., 2024. Boltzmann’s Work in Statistical Physics. In Zalta, E. & Nodelman. U. (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2024 Edition). <https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/win2024/entries/statphys-Boltzmann/>

    2024

  86. [94]

    Harriet the Invincible, New York: Penguin Random House

    Vernon, Ursula, 2015. Harriet the Invincible, New York: Penguin Random House

    2015

  87. [95]

    Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press

    Weinberg, S., 2013. Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press

    2013

  88. [96]

    & Argaman, N., 2020

    Wharton, K. & Argaman, N., 2020. Bell's Theorem and locally-mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 92, 21002. arXiv:1906.04313

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Berkson's paradox

    Wikipedia contributors, 2025. Berkson's paradox. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berkson

    2025

  90. [98]

    Correlation and causation

    Wright, Sewall, 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 557--585

    1921

  91. [99]

    Wood, C. J. & Spekkens, R. W. The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning. New Journal of Physics, 17. arXiv:1208.4119 [quant-ph]. DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/17/3/033002

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    5 Vg g x. e Iə z k1amim 䝝> o

    Johnson, N. & Katz, s., 1977. Urn models and their application : an approach to modern discrete probability theory. New York: Wiley.PenroseNew2.png0000664000000000000000000010253515043252036012441 0ustar rootrootPNG IHDR l5 iCCPICC ProfileH XS Ͻ7 : z(t 41Z =4ͣ0 ̔Ox'* 8 >jgdq8d...

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.