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

Bell's theorem is based on three assumptions: realism, locality, andmeasurement independence. The third assumption is identified by Bell as linkedto the freedom of choice hypothesis. He holds that ultimately the human freewill can ensure the measurement independence assumption. The incompleteexperimental conditions for supporting this third assumption are known in theliterature as "freedom-of-choice loophole" (FOCL). In a recent publication,Abell\'an et al [2018] address this problem and follow this same strategyembraced by Bell [2004]. Nevertheless, the possibility of human freedom ofchoice has been a matter of philosophical debate for more than 2000 years, andthere is no consensus among philosophers on this topic. If human choice is notfree, Bell's solution would not be sufficient to close FOCL. Therefore, inorder to support the basic assumption of this experiment, it is necessary toargue that human choice is indeed free. In this paper, we present a Kantianposition on this topic and defend the view that this philosophical position isthe best way to ensure that BigBell Test (Abell\'an et al. [2018]) can in factclose the loophole.

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