2020/06/02 by Romeu Rossi Junior, Junior, Romeu Rossi, Patrícia Kauark Leite +1
Physics and Astronomy · #FOS: Physical sciences #History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph) #Quantum Physics (quant-ph) #physics.hist-ph #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.01534
13 pages
arxiv created 2020/06/02 · arxiv updated 2020/06/03
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.