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

TL;DR

This paper proposes a Kantian philosophical approach to justify the freedom of human choice, aiming to close the freedom-of-choice loophole in Bell experiments and strengthen the validity of quantum nonlocality tests.

Contribution

It introduces a Kantian perspective to support the assumption of free human choice in Bell tests, addressing philosophical debates and enhancing experimental robustness.

Findings

Kantian philosophy provides a compelling argument for free human choice.

Applying Kantian ethics can reinforce the closure of the freedom-of-choice loophole.

The approach offers a philosophical foundation for experimental assumptions in quantum physics.

Abstract

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, Abell\'an 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 (Abell\'an et al. [2018]) can in fact close the loophole.