Causality, Bell's theorem, and Ontic Definiteness

TL;DR

This paper explores how rejecting ontic definiteness, a classical logic assumption, allows for a causal principle compatible with quantum correlations that violate Bell's inequalities, without implying superluminal influence.

Contribution

It demonstrates that abandoning ontic definiteness enables a causal framework consistent with quantum correlations, challenging the traditional assumptions underlying Bell's theorem.

Findings

Rejecting ontic definiteness preserves Einstein Locality.

Correlations violating Bell's inequalities are compatible with this causal view.

Addresses objections to changing classical logic assumptions.

Abstract

Bell's theorem shows that the reasonable relativistic causal principle known as "local causality" is not compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. It is not possible maintain a satisfying causal principle of this type while dropping any of the better-known assumptions of Bell's theorem. However, another assumption of Bell's theorem is the use of classical logic. One part of this assumption is the principle of "ontic definiteness", that is, that it must in principle be possible to assign definite truth values to all propositions treated in the theory. Once the logical setting is clarified somewhat, it can be seen that rejecting this principle does not in any way undermine the type of causal principle used by Bell. Without ontic definiteness, the deterministic causal condition known as Einstein Locality succeeds in banning superluminal influence (including signalling) whilst allowing correlations that violate Bell's inequalities. Objections to altering logic, and the consequences for operational and realistic viewpoints, are also addressed.