Comments on 'nonlocal influences and possible worlds'

Clifton, Butterfield, and Redhead [1989] have constructed two separate arguments that bear some resemblances to a proof of mine pertaining to the nonlocal character of quantum theory. Their arguments have flaws, which they point out. I explicate my proof by explaining in detail both how it differs logically from the two arguments they have constructed, and how it avoids the pitfalls of both. *This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO3-76SF00098.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/bjps/41.1.59
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,208
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Stapp's Theorem Without Counterfactual Commitments: Why It Fails Nonetheless.Michael Dickson - 1993 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 24 (5):791-814.
Comment on 'Stapp's Theorem Without Counterfactual Commitment'.Henry P. Stapp - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (6):959-964.
Reply to H. Stapp's Comment.Michael Dickson - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (6):965-966.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

8 ( #493,588 of 2,172,871 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #324,901 of 2,172,871 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums