1
$\begingroup$

EPR’s reality criterion and quantum realism has this paragraph (the paper has 0 citations, and I'm personally happy to call this metaphysics, but still!):

A popular interpretation of Bell’s theorem is that local realism is false. Care must be exercised when speaking of realism or locality because there are distinct levels of them. For example, on the non-locality side there is Bell-locality, non-signaling, quantum field theory microcausality, or the Bohm-Aharonov effect [3]. For the realism side, there are various philosophical distinctions of realism, but the EPR-reality criterion has probably the sharpest definition which can withstand mathematical arguments.

Is there any basis in stating there are different levels of 'locality' or 'reality', within physics or physical theories?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The word "level" here appears to be being used to mean "alternative possible definition". Of course there are alternative possible definitions. Whether "level" is a good choice of word here is, I think, an aesthetic choice. $\endgroup$ – WillO Jan 14 '18 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ That is what I wonder, as to 'alternative possible definition'.. with respect to 'reality', from a philosophical point of view, one could argue for a relational reality along Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics, but this paper seems distinctly non-relational, and so I wonder as to the different interpretations of realism that physics may (likely may not) present! Truthfully, it's the 'levels' of locality I find difficult to grasp - either information is limited to c, the speed of light, or it's not.. don't really see anything non-binary there myself! $\endgroup$ – Ilya Grushevskiy Jan 14 '18 at 22:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.