Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Reply to Unruh

Henry Pierce Stapp

Published Dec 19, 1997• 3 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

William Unruh has suggested (quant-ph/9710032) that a certain counterfactual statement in my recent nonlocality proof should be re-interpreted in a way that would block the proof. I give reason's why that statement should not be re-interpreted.

Related papers

Reply to Unruh

Henry Pierce Stapp

William Unruh has suggested (quant-ph/9710032) that a certain counterfactual statement in my recent nonlocality proof should be re-interpreted in a way that would block the proof. I give reason's why that statement should not be re-interpreted.

arXiv:quant-ph/9712043•Dec 19, 1997•0 citations

Reply to Unruh

Stapp, Henry P.

certain counterfactual statement in my recent nonlocality proof should be re-interpreted in a way that would block the proof.I give reason's why that statement should not be re-interpreted.

•Dec 19, 1997•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations

Nonlocality and Bohr's reply to EPR

N. David Mermin

Henry Stapp's commentary (quant-ph/9711060) does not capture the point I was trying to make in my essay (quant-ph/9711052) on how a subtle flaw in his ``proof of quantum nonlocality'' clearly illustrates a central issue in Bohr's reply to EPR. I therefore wish to emphasize what I do and do not say in that essay and even, with some trepidation, what Bohr did and did not say in his reply to EPR.

arXiv:quant-ph/9712003•Dec 1, 1997•4 citations

Meaning of counterfactual statements in quantum physics

Henry Pierce Stapp

David Mermin suggests that my recent proof pertaining to quantum nonlocality is undermined by an essential ambiguity pertaining to the meaning of counterfactual statements in quantum physics. The ambiguity he cites arises from his imposition of a certain criterion for the meaningfulness of such counterfactual statements. That criterion conflates the meaning of a counterfactual statement with the details of a proof of its validity in such a way as to make the meaning of such a statement dependent upon the context in which it occurs. That dependence violates the normal demand in logic that the meaning of a statement be defined by the words in the statement itself, not by the context in which the statement occurs. My proof conforms to that normal requirement. I describe the context-independent meaning within my proof of the counterfactual statements in question.

American Journal of Physics•Oct 1, 1998•74 citations

Reply to ‘‘Stapp’s algebraic argument for nonlocality’’

Henry Pierce Stapp

The logical structure of my recently proved nonlocality theorem [Phys. Rev. A 46, 6860 (1992)] is examined from the perspective of the theory counterfactual conditionals. It is shown in detail why the argument of Dickson and Clifton [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4259 (1994)] does not substantiate their claim.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1994•10 citations
David Mermin suggests that my recent proof pertaining to quantum nonlocality is undermined by an essential ambiguity pertaining to the meaning of counterfactual statements in quantum physics. The ambiguity he cites arises from his imposition of a certain criterion for the meaningfulness of such counterfactual statements. That criterion conflates the meaning of a counterfactual statement with the details of a proof of its validity in such a way as to make the meaning of such a statement dependent upon the context in which it occurs. That dependence violates the normal demand in logic that the meaning of a statement be defined by the words in the statement itself, not by the context in which the statement occurs. My proof conforms to that normal requirement. I describe the context-independent meaning within my proof of the counterfactual statements in question.