Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    In models that do not exclude violations of λ-independenc... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    In models that do not exclude violations of λ-independence, controllable probabilistic dependence is not a necessary condition for superluminal signaling.

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The necessary and sufficient conditions for superluminal signaling differ across models depending on whether λ-independence violations are excluded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In models that permit violation of λ-independence, superluminal signaling can occur through mechanisms other than controllable probabilistic dependence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Controllable probabilistic dependence remains a necessary condition for *operationally meaningful* superluminal signaling, since uncontrollable correlations cannot transmit information between agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Violations of λ-independence introduce hidden variable conspiracies that, by definition, remove the experimenter's ability to freely choose measurement settings, thereby undermining the signaling channel itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Maudlin's analysis in 'Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity' establishes that superluminal signaling requires a controllable cause, and λ-independence violations merely redescribe pre-existing correlations rather than generating new causal pathways.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A model permitting λ-independence violations conflates epistemic inaccessibility of hidden variables with genuine causal influence, making the alleged 'signaling' explanatorily vacuous by Fine's criterion of causal relevance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Causation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A model permitting λ-independence violations conflates epistemic inaccessibility...Controllable probabilistic dependence remains a necessary condition for *operati...In models that permit violation of λ-independence, superluminal signaling can oc...Maudlin's analysis in 'Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity' establishes that sup...
    +2 moreShow less
    The necessary and sufficient conditions for superluminal signaling differ across...Violations of λ-independence introduce hidden variable conspiracies that, by def...

    Similar

    In models that permit violation of λ-independence, superluminal signal...96%The necessary and sufficient conditions for superluminal signaling dif...92%Violation of λ-independence would imply the possibility of superlumina...88%If λ-distribution held, superluminal signaling would be possible in pr...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: qm-action-distance
    View source passageHide passage
    Note that the necessary and sufficient conditions for superluminal signaling are different in models that do not exclude in theory the violation of λ-independence. In such models controllable probabilistic dependence is not a necessary condition for superluminal signaling. The reasoning is as follows. Consider any empirically adequate model of the EPR/B experiment in which the pair's state and the settings of the measurement apparatuses are the only relevant factors for the probabilities of meas
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit