David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 128 (3):343 - 379 (2001)
Since the validity of Bell's inequalities implies the existence of joint probabilities for non-commuting observables, there is no universal consensus as to what the violation of these inequalities signifies. While the majority view is that the violation teaches us an important lesson about the possibility of explanations, if not about metaphysical issues, there is also a minimalist position claiming that the violation is to be expected from simple facts about probability theory. This minimalist position is backed by theorems due to A. Fine and I. Pitowsky.Our paper shows that the minimalist position cannot be sustained. To this end,we give a formally rigorous interpretation of joint probabilities in thecombined modal and spatiotemporal framework of `stochastic outcomes inbranching space-time' (SOBST) (Kowalski and Placek, 1999; Placek, 2000). We show in this framework that the claim that there can be no joint probabilities fornon-commuting observables is incorrect. The lesson from Fine's theorem is notthat Bell's inequalities will be violated anyhow, but that an adequate modelfor the Bell/Aspect experiment must not define global joint probabilities. Thus we investigate the class of stochastic hidden variable models, whichprima facie do not define such joint probabilities. The reasonwhy these models fail supports the majority view: Bell's inequalities are notjust a mathematical artifact.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Philosophy of Language|
|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
Michael Esfeld (2004). Quantum Entanglement and a Metaphysics of Relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 35 (4):601-617.
Thomas Muller (2007). A Branching Space-Times View on Quantum Error Correction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (3):635-652.
Thomas Müller (2010). Towards a Theory of Limited Indeterminism in Branching Space-Times. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (4):395 - 423.
Leszek Wroński & Tomasz Placek (2009). On Minkowskian Branching Structures☆. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 40 (3):251-258.
Nuel Belnap (2012). Newtonian Determinism to Branching Space-Times Indeterminism in Two Moves. Synthese 188 (1):5-21.
Similar books and articles
Abner Shimony (1984). Contextual Hidden Variables Theories and Bell's Inequalities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (1):25-45.
Thomas Filk (2011). Non-Classical Correlations in Bistable Perception? Axiomathes 21 (2):221-232.
T. Kowalski & Tomasz Placek (1999). Outcomes in Branching Space-Time and GHZ-Bell Theorems. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (3):349-375.
Arthur Fine (1982). Some Local Models for Correlation Experiments. Synthese 50 (2):279 - 294.
Soazig Le Bihan (2009). Fine's Ways to Fail to Secure Local Realism. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (2):142-150.
Jeremy Butterfield (1992). Bell's Theorem: What It Takes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (1):41-83.
Tomasz Placek (2000). Stochastic Outcomes in Branching Space-Time: Analysis of Bell's Theorem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (3):445-475.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads106 ( #16,634 of 1,700,416 )
Recent downloads (6 months)23 ( #31,130 of 1,700,416 )
How can I increase my downloads?