English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We address Gillis' recent criticism [arXiv:1506.05795] of a series of papers(by different combinations of the present authors) on formulations of Bell'stheorem. Those papers intended to address an unfortunate gap of communicationbetween two broad camps in the quantum foundations community that we identifyas "operationalists" and "realists". Here, we once again urge the readers toapproach the question from an unbiased standpoint, and explain that Gillis'criticism draws too heavily on the philosophical inclinations of one side ofthat debate -- the realist camp. As part of that explanation we discussintuition versus proof, look again at Bell's formalizations of locality, andcorrect misstatements by Gillis of our views, and those of Bell and Einstein.

Reply to Gillis's "On the Analysis of Bell's 1964 Paper by Wiseman, Cavalcanti, and Rieffel"