This paper addresses arguments that “separability” is an assumption of Bell’s theorem, and that abandoning this assumption in our interpretation of quantum mechanics (a position sometimes referred to as “holism”) will allow us to restore a satisfying locality principle. Separability here means that all events associated to the union of some set of disjoint regions are combinations of events associated to each region taken separately.In this article, it is shown that: (a) localised events can be consistently defined without implying separability; (...) (b) the definition of Bell’s locality condition does not rely on separability in any way; (c) the proof of Bell’s theorem does not use separability as an assumption. If, inspired by considerations of non-separability, the assumptions of Bell’s theorem are weakened, what remains no longer embodies the locality principle. Teller’s argument for “relational holism” and Howard’s arguments concerning separability are criticised in the light of these results. Howard’s claim that Einstein grounded his arguments on the incompleteness of QM with a separability assumption is also challenged. Instead, Einstein is better interpreted as referring merely to the existence of localised events. Finally, it is argued that Bell rejected the idea that separability is an assumption of his theorem. (shrink)

In the paper the relation between the standard probabilistic characterization of the common cause and Bell's notion of local causality will be investigated. It will be shown that the probabilistic common cause follows from local causality if one accepts, as Bell did, two assumptions concerning the common cause: first, the common cause is localized in the intersection of the past of the correlating events; second, it provides a complete specification of the `beables' of this intersection. However, neither assumptions are a (...) priori requirements. In the paper the logical role of these assumptions will be studied and it will be shown that only the second assumption is necessary for the derivation of the probabilistic common cause from local causality. (shrink)

In the paper the relation between the standard probabilistic characterization of the common cause and Bell's notion of local causality will be investigated. It will be shown that the probabilistic common cause follows from local causality if one accepts, as Bell did, two assumptions concerning the common cause: first, the common cause is localized in the intersection of the past of the correlating events; second, it provides a complete specification of the `beables' of this intersection. However, neither assumptions are a (...) priori requirements. In the paper the logical role of these assumptions will be studied and it will be shown that only the second assumption is necessary for the derivation of the probabilistic common cause from local causality. (shrink)

Rédei and San Pedro discuss my “Comparing Causality Principles,” their main aim being to distinguish reasonable weakened versions of two causality principles presented there, “SO1” and “SO2”. They also argue that the proof that SO1 implies SO2 contains a flaw. Here, a reply is made to a number of points raised in their paper. It is argued that the “intuition” that SO1 should be stronger than SO2 is implicitly based on a false premise. It is pointed out that a similar (...) weakening of SO2 was already considered in the original paper. The technical definition of the new conditions is shown to be defective. The argument against the stronger versions of SO1 and SO2 given by Rédei and San Pedro is criticised. The flaw in the original proof is shown to be an easily corrected mistake in the wording. Finally, it is argued that some cited results on causal conditions in AQFT have little relevance to these issues, and are, in any case, highly problematic in themselves. (shrink)