Synthese 127 (3):347 - 357 (2001)
|Abstract||We argue that any superluminal theory Tis empirically equivalent to a non-superluminaltheory T , with thefollowing constraints onT : T preservesthe spacetime intervals between events as entailedby T, T is naturalistic (as longas T is), and all the events which have causesaccording to T also have causes according toT. Tim Maudlin (1996) definesstandard interpretations of quantum mechanicsas interpretations `according to which there wasa unique set of outcomes in Aspect's laboratory,which outcomes occurred at spacelike separation, andMaudlin claims that standard interpretations must benon-local in the sense that there are superluminalinfluences. We show (even assuming Aspect's experimentis ideal) that Maudlin's claim is false.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Douglas W. Portmore (2003). Position‐Relative Consequentialism, Agent‐Centered Options, and Supererogation. Ethics 113 (2):303-332.
Jason Kawall (2003). Self-Regarding Supererogatory Actions. Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (3):487–498.
Jason Kawall (2009). Virtue Theory, Ideal Observers, and the Supererogatory. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):179-96.
Mauro Dorato (1996). On Becoming, Relativity, and Nonseparability. Philosophy of Science 63 (4):585-604.
Storrs McCall (2000). QM and STR: The Combining of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):548.
Rob Clifton (1996). The Properties of Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (3):371-398.
Espen Gamlund (2010). Supererogatory Forgiveness. Inquiry 53 (6):540-564.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #30,686 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)36 ( #3,063 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?