Counterfactual logic and the Hardy paradox: Remarks on Shimony and Stein's criticism of Stapp's proof
|Abstract||This is an extended critique of comments made by Abner Shimony and Howard Stein on Henry Stapp’s proof of the non-locality of quantum mechanics. Although I claim that ultimately Stapp’s proof does not establish its purported conclusion, yet Shimony and Stein’s criticism contains a number of weak points, which need to be clarified.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Rob Clifton & Mark Hogarth (1995). The Definability of Objective Becoming in Minkowski Spacetime. Synthese 103 (3):355 - 387.
Henry P. Stapp (1994). Comment on 'Stapp's Theorem Without Counterfactual Commitment'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (6):959-964.
Henry Stapp, Comments on Shimony's “An Analysis of Stapp's 'A Bell-Type Theorem Without Hidden Variables'”.
Robert K. Clifton, Jeremy N. Butterfield & Michael L. G. Redhead (1990). Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds--A Stapp in the Wrong Direction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (1):5-58.
Tomasz Bigaj (2010). How to (Properly) Strengthen Bell's Theorem Using Counterfactuals. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 41 (1):58-66.
Tomasz Bigaj (2007). Counterfactuals and Non-Locality of Quantum Mechanics: The Bedford–Stapp Version of the GHZ Theorem. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 12 (1):85-108.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #101,123 of 722,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?