TSQT `Elements of Possibility'?

TL;DR

The paper defends the proper application of the ABL rule in quantum mechanics, clarifying its limitations for counterfactual statements and arguing against its use for assigning elements of reality to quantum systems.

Contribution

It clarifies the correct usage of the ABL rule and refutes recent criticisms, emphasizing its restriction to 'might' counterfactuals rather than elements of reality.

Findings

The ABL rule applies to conjunctions of material conditionals, not genuine counterfactuals.

Only 'might' counterfactuals are valid with the ABL rule, limiting its use for elements of reality.

The paper refutes claims that the ABL rule can directly assign elements of reality to quantum systems.

Abstract

I defend my arguments in quant-ph/9806002, which have recently been criticized by L. Vaidman (quant-ph/9811092). I emphasize that the correct usage of the ABL rule applies not to a genuine counterfactual statement but rather to a conjunction of material conditionals. I argue that the only kind of valid counterfactual statement one can make using the ABL rule is a ``might'' counterfactual, which is not adequate for the attribution of `elements of reality' to a quantum system.