Comments on Shimony's Analysis *

Shimony’s method of analysis does not distinguish adequately between a legitimate assumption of no faster-than-light action in one direction and the to-be-proved assertion of faster-than-light tranfer of information in the opposite direction. The virtue is noted of replacing the logical framework based counterfactual concepts by one based the concept of fixed past and open future. ∗This work is supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 Professor Shimonys article[1] is an extremely helpful contribution to the subject. It summarizes in a lucid way the large areas of agreement between us, and provides a back-to-basics proof of the two propositions that are the main technical results of my paper[2]. Shimonys long and detailed derivation of those two basic propositions should lay completely to rest all but one of the objections that were raised against my more compact 1997 proof[3]. I shall examine presently that remaining objection, but first will emphasize some key points of agreement mentioned by Shimony. Shimony identifies the motivation of my work, namely the fact that the theorems of J.S. Bell[4] and his followers[5] rest explicitly or implicitly on the local-hidden-variable assumption that the values of the pertinent observables exist whether they are measured or not. That assumption conflicts with orthodox quantum philosophy, and that fact undermines the idea that some sort of faster-than-light transfer of information is implied by the conjunction of Bells theorem and the assumed validity of the predictions of quantum theory. The more likely conclusion, from the orthodox perspective, is a failure of the hidden-variable assumption. The orthodox interpretation of Bells theorem is not that faster-than-light transfer of information exists. It is rather that the hidden-variable assumption is false. Shimony notes that a proof not requiring a hidden-variable assumption of the need in quantum theory for faster-than-light information transfer “would be a profound scientific and philosophical achievement.” Shimony questions the sufficiency of my reasons for supplementing my 1997 proof with the 2004 version[2]. He examines, consequently, not my new proof but rather the explicitly counterfactual approach that I proposed in a published reply to his earlier comments. That approach differs fundamentally from the one used in my 2004 paper, but his proof of the validity of the two propositions covers both formulations. The proof constructed and criticized by Shimony lies within the general framework of counterfactual reasoning, whereas my 2004 proof, although retaining some of the trappings and language of counterfactual argumentation,