Stapp's attempt to derive Bell's Inequality from a weak locality condition while retaining indeterminism, requires careful scrutiny to ensure unambiguous definitions and valid reasoning. Such scrutiny reveals that the argument is fallacious. This result is obtained without commitment to any particular formal analysis of truth conditions for counterfactuals nor to conditions for world similarity.

Recent studies have shown that Einstein did not write the EPR paper and that he was disappointed with the outcome. He thought, rightly, that his own argument for the incompleteness of quantum theory was badly presented in the paper. We reconstruct the argument of EPR, indicate the reasons Einstein was dissatisfied with it, and discuss Einstein's own argument. We show that many commentators have been misled by the obscurity of EPR into proposing interpretations of its argument that do not accurately (...) represent Einstein's own views. Finally, we evaluate Einstein's own incompleteness argument, concluding that recent experimental findings have likely shown it to be unsound. (shrink)

The empirical validity of the locality (LOC) principle of relativity is used to argue in favour of a local hidden variable theory (HVT) for individual quantum processes. It is shown that such a HVT may reproduce the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics (QM), provided the reproducibility of initial hidden variable states is limited. This means that in a HVT limits should be set to the validity of the notion of counterfactual definiteness (CFD). This is supported by the empirical evidence that (...) past, present, and future are basically distinct. Our argumentation is contrasted with a recent one by Stapp resulting in the opposite conclusion, i.e. nonlocality or the existence of faster-than-light influences. We argue that Stapp’s argumentation still depends in an implicit, but crucial, way on both the notions of hidden variables and of CFD. In addition, some implications of our results for the debate between Bohr and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are discussed. (shrink)

The discussion of whether quantum theory is compatible with the locality idea that no causal influence can act outside the forward light cone has recently been tightly linked to the corresponding question for a much simpler model theory that enjoys all of the pertinent properties of quantum theory but is much easier to fully comprehend. It is shown here that, contrary to recent claims, the model theory is incompatible with the locality idea mentioned above. The logical structure of the argument, (...) which is similar to the one employed for quantum theory, is discussed. (shrink)