论文标题
铃铛实验中选择自由漏洞的康德解决方案
A Kantian Solution for the Freedom of Choice Loophole in Bell Experiments
论文作者
论文摘要
贝尔的定理基于三个假设：现实主义，位置和测量独立性。贝尔将第三个假设确定为与选择自由假设相关的。他认为，最终人类的自由将确保测量独立性假设。在文献中称支持这三个假设的不完整的实验条件被称为“选择自由漏洞”（FOCL）。在最近的出版物中，Abellán等人[2018]解决了这个问题，并遵循贝尔[2004]所接受的同样策略。然而，2000多年来，人类选择自由的可能性一直是哲学辩论的问题，哲学家在这个话题上尚无共识。如果人类的选择不是自由的，那么贝尔的解决方案将不足以关闭焦点。因此，为了支持该实验的基本假设，有必要争辩说人类的选择确实是自由的。在本文中，我们在这个主题上提出了康德的立场，并捍卫这种哲学立场是确保Bigbell测试（Abellán等人[2018]）实际上可以关闭漏洞的最佳方法。
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.
