Response to Wiseman, Rieffel, and Cavalcanti on Bell's 1964 Paper

TL;DR

This paper critically examines claims about Bell's 1964 paper, arguing that Wiseman and colleagues misrepresent Bell's original intent and rely on a flawed formalization of key concepts like influence and dependence.

Contribution

The paper clarifies Bell's original argument and exposes errors in Wiseman et al.'s formalization and interpretation of Bell's assumptions.

Findings

Wiseman's claim about Bell's inference of determinism is disputed.

The formalization used by Wiseman et al. is flawed due to misinterpretation of key terms.

Bell's original argument is consistent with an inference of determinism, contrary to Wiseman's claim.

Abstract

Wiseman has claimed that Bell was wrong in stating that determinism was inferred rather than assumed in the summary of the EPR argument in his 1964 paper. The reply of Wiseman and his co-authors to my comment misstates my reasons for disputing this point, and fails to address the central criticism that their claim is based on a seriously flawed formalization of Bell's argument deriving from an unreasonably strong interpretation of the the terms, 'influence', 'affect', and 'depend on'.