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

Physical Review A

Stapp’s algebraic argument for nonlocality

Michael Dickson, Rob Clifton

Published May 1, 1994• 11 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Stapp has recently presented a revised algebraic version of his (and others') earlier nonlocality arguments. Stapp's argument would seem to be an improvement over traditional arguments because he assumes only the so-called parameter-independence condition, but neither determinism nor the so-called outcome-independence condition. We show that, in fact, Stapp's argument rests on a logical fallacy.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.49.4251

Related papers

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

Stapp's theorem without counterfactual commitments: Why it fails nonetheless

Michael Dickson

Stapp's attempt to derive Bell's Inequality from a weak locality condition (Parameter Independence only) while retaining indeterminism, requires careful scrutiny to ensure unambiguous definitions and valid reasoning. Such scrutiny reveals that the argument is fallacious. This result is obtained without commitment to any particular formal analysis of truth conditions for counterfactuals nor to conditions for world similarity.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A•Dec 1, 1993•9 citations

Nonlocality, counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics

William George Unruh

Stapp [Am. J. Phys. 65, 300 (1997)] has recently argued from a version of the Hardy-type experiments that quantum mechanics must be nonlocal, independent of any additional assumptions such as realism or hidden variables. I argue either that his conclusions do not follow from his assumptions or that his assumptions are not true of quantum mechanics and can be interpreted as assigning an unwarranted level of reality to the value of certain quantum attributes.

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 1999•36 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

Reply to ?determinism, realism, and Stapp's 1985 proof of nonlocality?

Henry Pierce Stapp

Foundations of Physics Letters•Aug 1, 1989•0 citations

Comments on ?determinism, realism, and Stapp's 1985 proof of nonlocality?

Frederick Fellows

Foundations of Physics Letters•Aug 1, 1989•0 citations
Stapp has recently presented a revised algebraic version of his (and others') earlier nonlocality arguments. Stapp's argument would seem to be an improvement over traditional arguments because he assumes only the so-called parameter-independence condition, but neither determinism nor the so-called outcome-independence condition. We show that, in fact, Stapp's argument rests on a logical fallacy.