The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Comments on ‘Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds’

Henry Pierce Stapp

Published Mar 1, 1990• 7 citations

Abstract

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.

DOI: 10.1093/bjps/41.1.59

Related papers

Some difficulties for Clifton, Redhead, and Butterfield's recent proof of nonlocality

Martin R. Jones

Foundations of Physics LettersAug 1, 19913 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 AMay 1, 199410 citations

Comment on ``Possibility of quantum mechanics being nonlocal''

Henry Pierce Stapp

A recent proof, formulated in the symbolic language of modal logic, shows that a well-defined formulation of the possibility mentioned in the title is answered affirmatively. In the paper being commented upon several proposals were made about how to translate this symbolic proof into prose, and it was concluded, on the basis of those proposed translations, that either the proof was invalid or that an unwarranted reality assumption was made. However, those interpretations deviate in small but important ways from the precise logical path followed in the proof. It is explained here how by staying on this path one avoids the difficulties that those deviations engendered.

arXiv:quant-ph/9806070Jun 21, 19980 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 ASep 1, 19992 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/9712003Dec 1, 19974 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Counterfactual entanglement and nonlocal correlations in separable states’ ”

Oliver Cohen

Two objections have been raised to the arguments presented by Cohen [Phys. Rev. A 60, 80 (1999)]. It is pointed out that neither objection has anything to do with the main subject matter of that paper, and shown that both objections are based on misunderstandings of the examples to which they relate.

arXiv:quant-ph/0008080Physical Review ADec 4, 20002 citations