Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate about the non-locality of quantum mechanics is old, but still lively. Numerous people use non-locality as (bad) shorthand for quantum entanglement. But some have a long-standing commitment to the validity of this characterization. This paper examines two separate streams in this debate. The first is the arguments of Stapp, and especially his recent paper where he simplifies his contractual argument in the Hardy situation to argue for the non-locality of quantum mechanics. He has maintained his contention that an analysis of a Hardy-type correlation between two spatially separated observers proves that quantum mechanics itself is non-local, without any additional assumption of realism or hidden variables. In the second section, I try to carefully examine the Bell argument in the CHSH variant to see where the difference between the quantum and classical situations differ. Asher Peres was one of the great physicists of the late 20th century, especially for his intense concern with the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. His courage in devoting his life to an area many considered "philosophical" (i.e. non-physical) paved the way for the rest of us to reveal our interests and confusions about this area. I am not sure that he would agree with everything in this paper, but I offer it as a tribute to him.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".