Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:38:06.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Counterfactual Reasoning in the Bell-EPR Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Malcolm R. Forster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Skyrms's formulation of the argument against stochastic hidden variables in quantum mechanics using conditionals with chance consequences suffers from an ambiguity in its “conservation“ assumption. The strong version, which Skyrms needs, packs in a “no-rapport” assumption in addition to the weaker statement of the “experimental facts.“ On the positive side, I argue that Skyrms's proof has two unnoted virtues (not shared by previous proofs): (1) it shows that certain difficulties that arise for deterministic hidden variable theories that exploit a non-classical probability theory extend to the stochastic case; (2) the use of counterfactual conditionals relates the Bell puzzle to Dummett's (1976) discussion of realism in quantum mechanics.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 133 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks go to the participants of the May 1984 Workshop on Quantum Logic held at the University of Western Ontario who commented on an earlier version of this paper, especially Professors J. Bub, W. Demopoulos, W. Harper, C. Hooker, and I. Pitowsky. I also benefited greatly from correspondence with Professor B. Skyrms, as well as from comments of two referees.

References

Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., and Roger, G. (1982), “Experimental Tests of Bell's Inequality Using Time-Varying Analyzers”, Physical Review Letters 49: 1804–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspect, A., Grangier, P., and Roger, G. (1981), Physical Review Letters 47: 460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1965), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1: 195–200.Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1971), “Introduction to the Hidden Variable Question”, in Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, d'Espagnat, B. (ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clauser, J. F., and Horne, M. A. (1974), “Experimental Consequences of Objective Local Theories”, Physical Review D 10: 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. (1978), “Is Logic Empirical?”, in Truth and Other Enigmas, Cambridge: Harvard U. Press. (Originally in Contemporary British Philosophers, H. D. Lewis (ed.), London: George Allen and Unwin, 1976, pp. 45–68.)Google Scholar
d'Espagnat, B. (1979), “Quantum Theory and Reality”, Scientific American 241 (5): 258–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1982), “Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities”, Physical Review Letters 48: 291–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, M. R. (1984), “Probabilistic Causality and the Foundations of Modern Science”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979), “Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow”, Noûs 13: 455–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mermin, D. (1981), “Quantum Mysteries for Anyone”, Journal of Philosophy 78: 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitowsky, I. (1982a), “Resolution of the EPR and Bell Paradoxes”, Physical Review Letters 48: 1299–1302.Google Scholar
Pitowsky, I. (1982b), “Answers to Comments”, Physical Review Letters:Google Scholar
Pitowsky, I. (1983), “ Physical Review D 27: 2316–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N., and Simon, H. (1966), “Cause and Counterfactual”, Philosophy of Science 33: 323–40.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1982), “Counterfactual Definiteness and Local Causation”, Philosophy of Science 49: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneed, J. D. (1970), “Quantum Mechanics and Classical Probability Theory”, Synthese 21: 34–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stairs, A. (1979), “On Arthur Fine's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Synthese 42: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapp, H. P. (1971), “S-matrix, Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, Physical Review D 3: 1303–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P., and Zanotti, M. (1976), “On the Determinism of Hidden Variable Theories with Strict Correlation and Conditional Statistical Independence of Observables”, in Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics, Suppes, P. (ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 445–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1982), “The Charybdis of Realism: Epistemological Foundations of Bell's Inequality”, Synthese 52: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar