arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2006.01534quant-phphysics.hist-ph
收藏

贝尔实验中选择自由漏洞的康德解答

A Kantian Solution for the Freedom of Choice Loophole in Bell Experiments

Romeu Rossi Junior, Patrícia Kauark Leite

摘要:

贝尔定理基于三个假设:实在论、定域性和测量独立性。贝尔认为第三个假设与选择自由假说有关。他认为,人类的自由意志最终能够保证测量独立性假设。支持这第三个假设的不完全实验条件在文献中被称为“自由选择漏洞”(FOCL)。在最近的出版物中,Abellán et al [2018]解决了这个问题,并遵循Bell [2004]所采用的相同策略。尽管如此,人类自由选择的可能性一直是2000多年来哲学争论的问题,哲学家们在这个问题上没有达成共识。如果人类的选择不是自由的,贝尔的解决方案将不足以关闭FOCL。因此,为了支持这个实验的基本假设,有必要论证人类的选择确实是自由的。在本文中,我们提出了康德在这个问题上的立场,并捍卫了这样一种观点,即这种哲学立场是确保大贝尔测试(Abellán et al. [2018])实际上可以填补漏洞的最佳方式。

英文摘要:

Bell's theorem is based on three assumptions: realism, locality, and measurement independence. The third assumption is identified by Bell as linked to the freedom of choice hypothesis. He holds that ultimately the human free will can ensure the measurement independence assumption. The incomplete experimental conditions for supporting this third assumption are known in the literature as "freedom-of-choice loophole" (FOCL). In a recent publication, Abellán et al [2018] address this problem and follow this same strategy embraced by Bell [2004]. Nevertheless, the possibility of human freedom of choice has been a matter of philosophical debate for more than 2000 years, and there is no consensus among philosophers on this topic. If human choice is not free, Bell's solution would not be sufficient to close FOCL. Therefore, in order to support the basic assumption of this experiment, it is necessary to argue that human choice is indeed free. In this paper, we present a Kantian position on this topic and defend the view that this philosophical position is the best way to ensure that BigBell Test (Abellán et al. [2018]) can in fact close the loophole.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑