© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/9907027

The meaning of 'counterfactual' statements and non-locality in quantum mechanics

T. C. Choy, Debra Ziegeler

Published Jul 8, 1999• 0 citations

Abstract

Recent discussions by Mermin [1] and Stapp [2] in this journal on non-locality and counterfactuality are shown to contain linguistic problems that require verification. As such they can at most provide us with two subjective choices for the meaning of 'counterfactual statements' in quantum mechanics. We shall show that the word 'counterfactual' is in fact inappropriate here and should be replaced by the word 'hypothetical'. Mermin's choice imposes a strictly contextual meaning based upon an interpretation of counterfactuality which he used to refute, without proof as we shall see, Stapp's logical proof [3] of non-locality in quantum theory. In linguistic theory both authors' choices of meaning: counterfactual versus hypothetical are equally acceptable and therefore some of the issues they discussed lie outside the domain of physics. The issues they discussed are further confused by the fact that in his reply Stapp [2] seems to have adopted Mermin's counterfactual interpretation against his own original [3] hypothetical interpretation. In the rest of this paper we shall adopt the hypothetical sense of Stapp's original statements but we modify his crucial statement LOC2 appropriately, then following his argumentations, we shall show that there is no conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. We suggest that this should be the natural (pragmatic) choice of meaning in defining the predictions of events in the Hardy experiment.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9907027

Related papers

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

Comment on “Nonlocal character of quantum theory,” by Henry P. Stapp [Am. J. Phys. 65 (4), 300–304 (1997)]

Abner Shimony, Howard Stein

A 1997 paper by Henry Stapp attempts to achieve a definitive argument for his long-sustained thesis that quantum mechanics implies a nonlocality inconsistent with the locality of relativity theory. His argument assumes both the validity of counterfactual reasoning under certain circumstances and the free choice of performance of experiments, and it specifically refrains from any assumptions about “elements of physical reality” as understood by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. In Sec. I we drastically condense his argument but retain his central principle of inference, called “LOC2,” which he claims is a consequence of relativistic locality. By careful attention to counterfactual reasoning we then throw doubt upon this claim and hence upon his argument as a whole. In Sec. II we answer Stapp’s reply to our critique of the 1997 paper. Section III is a postscript, commenting briefly on Stapp’s answer to Sec. II.

American Journal of Physics•Aug 1, 2001•18 citations

Counterfactual Logic and the Hardy Paradox: Remarks on Shimony and Stein's Criticism of Stapp's Proof

Tomasz Bigaj

This is an extended critique of comments made by Abner Shimony and Howard Stein on Henry Stapp’s proof of the non-locality of quantum mechanics. Although I claim that ultimately Stapp’s proof does not establish its purported conclusion, yet Shimony and Stein’s criticism contains a number of weak points, which need to be clarified.

•May 1, 2004•2 citations

Nonlocality and Bohr's Reply to EPR

Henry Pierce Stapp

David Mermin's recent paper with the same title as this one makes it clear that his claim to have found a gap in my reasoning rests on his claim that my argument violates a criterion for meaningfulness of counterfactual statements that I myself had set down. I set down no such requirement. But I am willing to accept it as a conservative sufficient condition. This already entails, within my proof, that nature must have a deep structure that extends beyond what actually occurs. It imposes, without appeal to the notion of determinism or hidden variables, constraints connecting, at the macroscopic level, what did occur to what would have occurred if certain quantum choices had gone differently. All the statements in the proof have natural meanings within the context of an examination of that deep structure.

arXiv:quant-ph/9712036•Dec 17, 1997•1 citation

Counterfactuals and non-locality of quantum mechanics

Tomasz Bigaj

In the paper the proof of the non-locality of quantum mechanics, given recently by H. Stapp and D. Bedford, and appealing to the GHZ example, is analyzed. The proof does not contain any explicit assumption of realism, but instead it uses formal methods and techniques of the Lewis calculus of counterfactuals. To ascertain the validity of the proof, a formal semantic model for counterfactuals is constructed. With the help of this model it can be shown that the proof is faulty, because it appeals to the unwarranted principle of Elimination of Eliminated Conditions (EEC). As an additional way of showing unreasonableness of the assumption (EEC), it is argued that yet another alleged and highly controversial proof of non-locality of QM, using the Hardy example, can be made almost trivial with the help of (EEC). Next the question is considered whether the validity of the proof in the GHZ case can be restored by adopting the assumption of partial realism. It is argued that although this assumption makes the crucial step of the original reasoning valid, it nevertheless renders another important transition unjustified, therefore the entire reasoning collapses.

•May 1, 2002•1 citation

Non-local Character of Quantum Mechanics: 20 Years Later

Tomasz Bigaj

In this tribute to Henry P. Stapp, I outline the historical development of the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics starting from the EPR argument through Bell’s theorem up to Stapp’s own contributions. My focus is on Stapp’s 1997 proof of quantum non-locality that uses the logic of counterfactuals. On the basis of my own version of the proof presented in 2010, I give its informal analysis, emphasizing the role of Einstein’s criterion of reality in the derivation. I conclude that the proof achieves its objective, and I briefly point at its significance for the philosophical mind-body problem.

Activitas Nervosa Superior•Apr 16, 2019•2 citations

Recent discussions by Mermin [1] and Stapp [2] in this journal on non-locality and counterfactuality are shown to contain linguistic problems that require verification. As such they can at most provide us with two subjective choices for the meaning of 'counterfactual statements' in quantum mechanics. We shall show that the word 'counterfactual' is in fact inappropriate here and should be replaced by the word 'hypothetical'. Mermin's choice imposes a strictly contextual meaning based upon an interpretation of counterfactuality which he used to refute, without proof as we shall see, Stapp's logical proof [3] of non-locality in quantum theory. In linguistic theory both authors' choices of meaning: counterfactual versus hypothetical are equally acceptable and therefore some of the issues they discussed lie outside the domain of physics. The issues they discussed are further confused by the fact that in his reply Stapp [2] seems to have adopted Mermin's counterfactual interpretation against his own original [3] hypothetical interpretation. In the rest of this paper we shall adopt the hypothetical sense of Stapp's original statements but we modify his crucial statement LOC2 appropriately, then following his argumentations, we shall show that there is no conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. We suggest that this should be the natural (pragmatic) choice of meaning in defining the predictions of events in the Hardy experiment.

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.

A 1997 paper by Henry Stapp attempts to achieve a definitive argument for his long-sustained thesis that quantum mechanics implies a nonlocality inconsistent with the locality of relativity theory. His argument assumes both the validity of counterfactual reasoning under certain circumstances and the free choice of performance of experiments, and it specifically refrains from any assumptions about “elements of physical reality” as understood by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. In Sec. I we drastically condense his argument but retain his central principle of inference, called “LOC2,” which he claims is a consequence of relativistic locality. By careful attention to counterfactual reasoning we then throw doubt upon this claim and hence upon his argument as a whole. In Sec. II we answer Stapp’s reply to our critique of the 1997 paper. Section III is a postscript, commenting briefly on Stapp’s answer to Sec. II.

David Mermin's recent paper with the same title as this one makes it clear that his claim to have found a gap in my reasoning rests on his claim that my argument violates a criterion for meaningfulness of counterfactual statements that I myself had set down. I set down no such requirement. But I am willing to accept it as a conservative sufficient condition. This already entails, within my proof, that nature must have a deep structure that extends beyond what actually occurs. It imposes, without appeal to the notion of determinism or hidden variables, constraints connecting, at the macroscopic level, what did occur to what would have occurred if certain quantum choices had gone differently. All the statements in the proof have natural meanings within the context of an examination of that deep structure.

In the paper the proof of the non-locality of quantum mechanics, given recently by H. Stapp and D. Bedford, and appealing to the GHZ example, is analyzed. The proof does not contain any explicit assumption of realism, but instead it uses formal methods and techniques of the Lewis calculus of counterfactuals. To ascertain the validity of the proof, a formal semantic model for counterfactuals is constructed. With the help of this model it can be shown that the proof is faulty, because it appeals to the unwarranted principle of Elimination of Eliminated Conditions (EEC). As an additional way of showing unreasonableness of the assumption (EEC), it is argued that yet another alleged and highly controversial proof of non-locality of QM, using the Hardy example, can be made almost trivial with the help of (EEC). Next the question is considered whether the validity of the proof in the GHZ case can be restored by adopting the assumption of partial realism. It is argued that although this assumption makes the crucial step of the original reasoning valid, it nevertheless renders another important transition unjustified, therefore the entire reasoning collapses.

In this tribute to Henry P. Stapp, I outline the historical development of the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics starting from the EPR argument through Bell’s theorem up to Stapp’s own contributions. My focus is on Stapp’s 1997 proof of quantum non-locality that uses the logic of counterfactuals. On the basis of my own version of the proof presented in 2010, I give its informal analysis, emphasizing the role of Einstein’s criterion of reality in the derivation. I conclude that the proof achieves its objective, and I briefly point at its significance for the philosophical mind-body problem.