David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (1):5-58 (1990)
give a proof of the existence of nonlocal influences acting on correlated spin-1/2 particles in the singlet state which does not require any particular interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). (Except Stapp holds that the proof fails under a many-worlds interpretation of QM—a claim we analyse in 1.2.) Recently, in responding to Redhead's (, pp. 90-6) criticism that the Stapp 1 proof fails under an indeterministic interpretation of QM, Stapp  (henceforth Stapp 2), has revised the logical structure of his proof including its crucial locality assumption. Our main aim is to show that this revision is a step in the wrong direction because it faces two difficulties which undermine the resulting proof's significance (3.1) and validity (3. 2). We also clarify and extend the Stapp 1 proof (1. 1) with the aid of Lewis' analysis of counterfactuals (1. 2) and causal dependence (2. 2 and 2. 3). In so doing, we are able to identify two new defects in the Stapp 1 proof (1. 3 and 2. 1) in addition to corroborating Redhead's criticism (2. 2). Also, the additional assumptions which save the Stapp 1 proof's validity are detailed (2. 3) and some new difficulties for the determinist are pointed out by exploiting a slightly extended version of the proof (2. 4). In providing this full analysis of the Stapp 1 proof, we also construct the necessary framework within which to provide a critique of Stapp 2's proof (3). *Portions of this paper were presented by R. K. Clifton to the 1988 British Society for the Philosophy of Science Conference at the University of Southampton. R. K. Clifton wishes to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, and the Governing Body of Peterhouse at Cambridge University for support during this work.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Donald Bedford & Henry P. Stapp (1995). Bell's Theorem in an Indeterministic Universe. Synthese 102 (1):139 - 164.
Abner Shimony (2006). An Analysis of Stapp's “A Bell-Type Theorem Without Hidden Variables”. Foundations of Physics 36 (1):61-72.
Michael Dickson (1993). Stapp's Theorem Without Counterfactual Commitments: Why It Fails Nonetheless. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 24 (5):791-814.
GianCarlo Ghirardi & Renata Grassi (1994). Outcome Predictions and Property Attribution: The EPR Argument Reconsidered. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (3):397-423.
Tomasz Bigaj (2013). How to Evaluate Counterfactuals in the Quantum World. Synthese 190 (4):619-637.
Similar books and articles
Henry P. Stapp (1990). Comments on 'Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds'. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (1):59-72.
Tomasz Bigaj (2007). Counterfactuals and Non-Locality of Quantum Mechanics: The Bedford–Stapp Version of the GHZ Theorem. Foundations of Science 12 (1):85-108.
Henry P. Stapp (2012). Quantum Locality? Foundations of Physics 42 (5):647-655.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads113 ( #32,792 of 1,793,164 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #344,170 of 1,793,164 )
How can I increase my downloads?