Some difficulties for Clifton,Redhead, and Butterfield's recent proof of nonlocality

Clifton, Redhead, and Butterfield have recently produced a generalization of the new non-locality proof due to Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger. Their proof is intended to have certain advantages over the standard Belltype arguments. One of these is that, although the proof allows for causally relevant apparatus hidden variables, it avoids the need for making certain standard locality assumptions about those parameters. On closer inspection, the part of the proof which supposedly removes the need for such assumptions is shown to rest on a fallacy. This renders the proof invalid. Two other, related difficulties are explored along the way.1. CRB actually provide two nonlocality proofs, but our concern here is with the first.2. Cf. p.173 for a precise formulation of these. (Any references in these footnotes are to 1].) Note that, due to the way CRB define the µ's, these conditions are not entirely independent.3. Cf. p.174. Note that CRB claim to derive the independence of outcomes from apparatus existents via our other assumptions without imposing any other conditions on their distributions, citing Lemma 2, which we shall object to in Sec. 4 below. This should be given a careful reading; Lemma 2 only purports to derive the statistical independence of outcomes fromlocal (i.e., nearby) apparatus hidden variables. The independence of outcomes fromdistant apparatus hidden variables is assumed, rather, in OL.4. Here, and in many places, I shall rely on 1] for the details.5. CRB have endorsed this definition of M (personal correspondence).6. More precisely, those values of do so for at least one possible quadruple of apparatus existents, and measurement results; and foruncountably many setting quadruples in (p.167).7. Given CRB's way of defining the µ's so as to include the information found in the 's, the terms in OF and most of those in OL would actually be ill-defined in most cases (for each ) inany theory. This is simply because the measuring devices cannot be set to measure in two different directions at once. However, it should be possible to remedy that situation by simply redefining µ so that it includes only information about the state of the apparatus not covered by .8. CRB endorse the first of these two suggestions (personal correspondence).9. I have omitted the arguments fromA,B,C andD. Wherever they appear without arguments they will implicitly have the three with which they were first introduced. Note that M⁺ should ideally be indexed by and , as there is no reason to think that all the same members of M will makeABCD = +1 for different values of and .10. Cf. note 6 above.11. Note that in light of this objection to their proof, we can see that CRB also fail to establish the link they claim exists between TF, strict correlations, and the condition they call TF.TF is the four-particle analogue of the conjunction of Shimony's outcome independence and his parameter independence (p.162). They rest their claim about the link on Lemma 2 (pp.162 and 165).