Correlations and Counterfactuals: The EPR Illusion
I argue that ever since Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen’s original paper, our thinking about quantum correlations has been dogged by a persistent illusion: we fall into the trap of taking measurements on one half of an EPR pair to license counterfactual inferences about the other member of the pair. In this essay I attempt to diagnose this illusion and make it less tempting.
KeywordsEntangle Pair State Attribution Objective Chance Causal Past Future Light Cone
- Bell, J.S. 1964. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics 1: 195–200.Google Scholar
- Fleming, G.N. 1988. Lorentz invariant state reduction, and localization. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, Vol. 1988, Volume two: Symposia and invited papers, eds. A. Fine and J. Leplin, 112–126. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Fleming, G. N. 2003. Observations on hyperplanes: I. State Reduction and Unitary Evolution. PhilSci-Archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001533/.
- Lewis, D. 1980. A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In Studies in inductive logic and probability, vol. II, ed. Richard C. Jeffrey, 263–293. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Reprinted in 1987 Philosophical Papers Volume II, 83–133. Oxford: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
- Stalnaker, R. 1981. A defense of conditional excluded middle. In Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance and time, eds. W.L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, and G. Pearce, 87–104. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar