In his (1996) Willem M. de Muynck takes issue with some arguments I have advanced in Laudisa (1996). He aims to show that my defence of the relevance of the Bell inequalities to the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics is not well-founded or—at least—is unduly restrictive. Several points in de Muynck's paper deserve discussion, but I would like just to comment on what seem to me the main ones. Accordingly I will focus on: (1) definitions of (non-)locality; (2) non-objectivism, contextualism and the Bell inequalities; (3) causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, explanation and metaphysics; and (4) joint measurements, locality and the Bell inequalities.
Laudisa, F. (1996). Still in defence: a short reply on nonlocality and widespread beliefs. STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF MODERN PHYSICS, 27(3), 331-335 [10.1016/S1355-2198(96)00011-1].
Still in defence: a short reply on nonlocality and widespread beliefs
LAUDISA, FEDERICO
1996
Abstract
In his (1996) Willem M. de Muynck takes issue with some arguments I have advanced in Laudisa (1996). He aims to show that my defence of the relevance of the Bell inequalities to the problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics is not well-founded or—at least—is unduly restrictive. Several points in de Muynck's paper deserve discussion, but I would like just to comment on what seem to me the main ones. Accordingly I will focus on: (1) definitions of (non-)locality; (2) non-objectivism, contextualism and the Bell inequalities; (3) causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, explanation and metaphysics; and (4) joint measurements, locality and the Bell inequalities.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
