Philosophers
Mortimer Adler Rogers Albritton Alexander of Aphrodisias Samuel Alexander William Alston Anaximander G.E.M.Anscombe Anselm Louise Antony Thomas Aquinas Aristotle David Armstrong Harald Atmanspacher Robert Audi Augustine J.L.Austin A.J.Ayer Alexander Bain Mark Balaguer Jeffrey Barrett William Barrett William Belsham Henri Bergson George Berkeley Isaiah Berlin Richard J. Bernstein Bernard Berofsky Robert Bishop Max Black Susanne Bobzien Emil du BoisReymond Hilary Bok Laurence BonJour George Boole Émile Boutroux Daniel Boyd F.H.Bradley C.D.Broad Michael Burke Lawrence Cahoone C.A.Campbell Joseph Keim Campbell Rudolf Carnap Carneades Nancy Cartwright Gregg Caruso Ernst Cassirer David Chalmers Roderick Chisholm Chrysippus Cicero Randolph Clarke Samuel Clarke Anthony Collins Antonella Corradini Diodorus Cronus Jonathan Dancy Donald Davidson Mario De Caro Democritus Daniel Dennett Jacques Derrida René Descartes Richard Double Fred Dretske John Dupré John Earman Laura Waddell Ekstrom Epictetus Epicurus Austin Farrer Herbert Feigl Arthur Fine John Martin Fischer Frederic Fitch Owen Flanagan Luciano Floridi Philippa Foot Alfred Fouilleé Harry Frankfurt Richard L. Franklin Bas van Fraassen Michael Frede Gottlob Frege Peter Geach Edmund Gettier Carl Ginet Alvin Goldman Gorgias Nicholas St. John Green H.Paul Grice Ian Hacking Ishtiyaque Haji Stuart Hampshire W.F.R.Hardie Sam Harris William Hasker R.M.Hare Georg W.F. Hegel Martin Heidegger Heraclitus R.E.Hobart Thomas Hobbes David Hodgson Shadsworth Hodgson Baron d'Holbach Ted Honderich Pamela Huby David Hume Ferenc Huoranszki Frank Jackson William James Lord Kames Robert Kane Immanuel Kant Tomis Kapitan Walter Kaufmann Jaegwon Kim William King Hilary Kornblith Christine Korsgaard Saul Kripke Thomas Kuhn Andrea Lavazza Christoph Lehner Keith Lehrer Gottfried Leibniz Jules Lequyer Leucippus Michael Levin Joseph Levine George Henry Lewes C.I.Lewis David Lewis Peter Lipton C. Lloyd Morgan John Locke Michael Lockwood Arthur O. Lovejoy E. Jonathan Lowe John R. Lucas Lucretius Alasdair MacIntyre Ruth Barcan Marcus Tim Maudlin James Martineau Nicholas Maxwell Storrs McCall Hugh McCann Colin McGinn Michael McKenna Brian McLaughlin John McTaggart Paul E. Meehl Uwe Meixner Alfred Mele Trenton Merricks John Stuart Mill Dickinson Miller G.E.Moore Thomas Nagel Otto Neurath Friedrich Nietzsche John Norton P.H.NowellSmith Robert Nozick William of Ockham Timothy O'Connor Parmenides David F. Pears Charles Sanders Peirce Derk Pereboom Steven Pinker Plato Karl Popper Porphyry Huw Price H.A.Prichard Protagoras Hilary Putnam Willard van Orman Quine Frank Ramsey Ayn Rand Michael Rea Thomas Reid Charles Renouvier Nicholas Rescher C.W.Rietdijk Richard Rorty Josiah Royce Bertrand Russell Paul Russell Gilbert Ryle JeanPaul Sartre Kenneth Sayre T.M.Scanlon Moritz Schlick Arthur Schopenhauer John Searle Wilfrid Sellars Alan Sidelle Ted Sider Henry Sidgwick Walter SinnottArmstrong J.J.C.Smart Saul Smilansky Michael Smith Baruch Spinoza L. Susan Stebbing Isabelle Stengers George F. Stout Galen Strawson Peter Strawson Eleonore Stump Francisco Suárez Richard Taylor Kevin Timpe Mark Twain Peter Unger Peter van Inwagen Manuel Vargas John Venn Kadri Vihvelin Voltaire G.H. von Wright David Foster Wallace R. Jay Wallace W.G.Ward Ted Warfield Roy Weatherford C.F. von Weizsäcker William Whewell Alfred North Whitehead David Widerker David Wiggins Bernard Williams Timothy Williamson Ludwig Wittgenstein Susan Wolf Scientists David Albert Michael Arbib Walter Baade Bernard Baars Jeffrey Bada Leslie Ballentine Marcello Barbieri Gregory Bateson Horace Barlow John S. Bell Mara Beller Charles Bennett Ludwig von Bertalanffy Susan Blackmore Margaret Boden David Bohm Niels Bohr Ludwig Boltzmann Emile Borel Max Born Satyendra Nath Bose Walther Bothe Jean Bricmont Hans Briegel Leon Brillouin Stephen Brush Henry Thomas Buckle S. H. Burbury Melvin Calvin Donald Campbell Sadi Carnot Anthony Cashmore Eric Chaisson Gregory Chaitin JeanPierre Changeux Rudolf Clausius Arthur Holly Compton John Conway Jerry Coyne John Cramer Francis Crick E. P. Culverwell Antonio Damasio Olivier Darrigol Charles Darwin Richard Dawkins Terrence Deacon Lüder Deecke Richard Dedekind Louis de Broglie Stanislas Dehaene Max Delbrück Abraham de Moivre Bernard d'Espagnat Paul Dirac Hans Driesch John Eccles Arthur Stanley Eddington Gerald Edelman Paul Ehrenfest Manfred Eigen Albert Einstein George F. R. Ellis Hugh Everett, III Franz Exner Richard Feynman R. A. Fisher David Foster Joseph Fourier Philipp Frank Steven Frautschi Edward Fredkin Benjamin GalOr Howard Gardner Lila Gatlin Michael Gazzaniga Nicholas GeorgescuRoegen GianCarlo Ghirardi J. Willard Gibbs James J. Gibson Nicolas Gisin Paul Glimcher Thomas Gold A. O. Gomes Brian Goodwin Joshua Greene Dirk ter Haar Jacques Hadamard Mark Hadley Patrick Haggard J. B. S. Haldane Stuart Hameroff Augustin Hamon Sam Harris Ralph Hartley Hyman Hartman Jeff Hawkins JohnDylan Haynes Donald Hebb Martin Heisenberg Werner Heisenberg John Herschel Basil Hiley Art Hobson Jesper Hoffmeyer Don Howard John H. Jackson William Stanley Jevons Roman Jakobson E. T. Jaynes Pascual Jordan Eric Kandel Ruth E. Kastner Stuart Kauffman Martin J. Klein William R. Klemm Christof Koch Simon Kochen Hans Kornhuber Stephen Kosslyn Daniel Koshland Ladislav Kovàč Leopold Kronecker Rolf Landauer Alfred Landé PierreSimon Laplace Karl Lashley David Layzer Joseph LeDoux Gerald Lettvin Gilbert Lewis Benjamin Libet David Lindley Seth Lloyd Hendrik Lorentz Werner Loewenstein Josef Loschmidt Ernst Mach Donald MacKay Henry Margenau Owen Maroney David Marr Humberto Maturana James Clerk Maxwell Ernst Mayr John McCarthy Warren McCulloch N. David Mermin George Miller Stanley Miller Ulrich Mohrhoff Jacques Monod Vernon Mountcastle Emmy Noether Alexander Oparin Abraham Pais Howard Pattee Wolfgang Pauli Massimo Pauri Wilder Penfield Roger Penrose Steven Pinker Colin Pittendrigh Walter Pitts Max Planck Susan Pockett Henri Poincaré Daniel Pollen Ilya Prigogine Hans Primas Henry Quastler Adolphe Quételet Pasco Rakic Nicolas Rashevsky Lord Rayleigh Jürgen Renn Giacomo Rizzolati Emil Roduner Juan Roederer Jerome Rothstein David Ruelle Tilman Sauer Ferdinand de Saussure Jürgen Schmidhuber Erwin Schrödinger Aaron Schurger Sebastian Seung Thomas Sebeok Franco Selleri Claude Shannon Charles Sherrington David Shiang Abner Shimony Herbert Simon Dean Keith Simonton Edmund Sinnott B. F. Skinner Lee Smolin Ray Solomonoff Roger Sperry John Stachel Henry Stapp Tom Stonier Antoine Suarez Leo Szilard Max Tegmark Teilhard de Chardin Libb Thims William Thomson (Kelvin) Richard Tolman Giulio Tononi Peter Tse Alan Turing Francisco Varela Vlatko Vedral Mikhail Volkenstein Heinz von Foerster Richard von Mises John von Neumann Jakob von Uexküll C. S. Unnikrishnan C. H. Waddington John B. Watson Daniel Wegner Steven Weinberg Paul A. Weiss Herman Weyl John Wheeler Wilhelm Wien Norbert Wiener Eugene Wigner E. O. Wilson Günther Witzany Stephen Wolfram H. Dieter Zeh Semir Zeki Ernst Zermelo Wojciech Zurek Konrad Zuse Fritz Zwicky Presentations Biosemiotics Free Will Mental Causation James Symposium 
Tim Maudlin
Tim Maudlin is a philosopher of science at New York University.
In the three editions of his first book Quantum NonLocality and Relativity (19942011), Maudlin describes the EPR Paradox and Bell's Theorem in great detail. In his most recent book, Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory (2019), he returns to summarize the situation with entangled particles... Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen never took the possibility of such a nonlocal physical interaction between the socks (or the electrons) seriously. In fact, they thought the idea so absurd that they never imagined anyone would entertain it. What the EPR article pointed out was that to avoid such a strange “spooky action at adistance” (in Einstein's famous phrase), one has to postulate that the two electrons described above have definite dispositions concerning how they would react to the magnets from the moment they are produced and separate from each other. One of the electrons has to be zspin up and the other zspin down from the outset. Otherwise, how could either be sensitive to the behavior of the other in the right way to preserve the perfect anticorrelation? In the final pages of the 2011 edition of Quantum NonLocality and Relativity, Maudlin explained that the quantum state of a "composite system" of entangled electrons (or photons) can not be described as the product of the individual states of the two particles. In 1935 Erwin Schrödinger reacted to the EPR paper by telling Albert Einstein there was a flaw in Einstein's separability argument about the EPR Paradox. Einstein assumed that the particles could "separate" as they travel away from each other and become independent, singleparticle quantum states. Schrödinger said that Einstein's "separability principle" (Trennungsprinzip) was simply wrong. The correct "wave function" that "entangles" two particles with one another (as describable by Schrödinger's wave equation) is a twoparticle, interdependent wave function . Only after a measurement "collapses" the twoparticle wave function can the particles be described as the product of singleparticle wave functions. Maudlin writes the spin state of the pair of entangled particles as
Few philosophers of science include these mathematical details of quantum mechanics as does Maudlin. We can compare his quantum mechanics math to that of David Bohm, who in 1957 first formulated the quantum mechanics of entangled electrons, We consider a molecule of total spin zero consisting of two atoms, each of spin onehalf. The wave function of the system is therefore Note that when Bohm says "because the total spin is still zero, it can immediately be concluded that the same component of the spin of the other particle (B) is opposite to that of A," he is implicitly using the conservation of total spin.
In 1964, John Bell followed David Bohm. Here is Bell's description. As with Bohm, Bell does not explicitly mention conservation of angular momentum, but he describes spin components measured in the same direction...
With the example advocated by Bohm and Aharonov, the EPR argument is the following. Consider a pair of spin onehalf particles formed somehow in the singlet spin state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurements can be made, say by SternGerlach magnets, on selected components of the spins σ_{1} and σ_{2}. If measurement of the component σ_{1} • a, where a is some unit vector, yields the value + 1 then, according to quantum mechanics, measurement of σ_{2} • a must yield the value — 1 and vice versa. In his most recent description of twoparticles that may be entangled, Maudlin first describes the two particles in separate singleparticle quantum states... We now have all the pieces in place to apply the recipe to Bohm’s version of the EPR experiment and to derive predictions of violations of Bell’s inequality...As usual, we construct the entangled state by starting with unentangled product states. Suppose we have a pair of electrons that begin in the same location, with one traveling off to the right the other to the left. The one going to the right can have the spinor z↑> and the one traveling to the left z↓>. The resulting product state could be symbolized as  z↑, right> and z ↓, left>...There is no entanglement in either of these states, and making predictions from them is easy. For example, in the first state, if both particles are passed through zoriented magnets, the rightmoving particle will be deflected up and the leftmoving one down. If they are both passed through xoriented magnets, then each has a 5050 chance of being deflected either way, with no correlations predicted between them. That is, finding out which direction one goes will not change the prediction about the other. It will still be 5050. Now Maudlin goes on to describe the entangled twoparticle quantum system, which Erwin Schrödinger describes as a superposition of the above two states.. By the superposition principle, we can form from this pair of states the entangled state  z↑, right> z ↓, left>   z ↓, right>  z ↑, left>... This is called the singlet state of spin... Like Bohm and Bell, Maudlin also does not mention the law of conservation of angular momentum (spin), but what if the two entangled particles remain at all times before a measurement in that singlet state with total spin zero? Can we still say, as Maudlin does, that there is still a 5050 chance that either particle will be measured up or down individually as required by quantum mechanical indeterminism, but that the twoparticle wave function has had a joint property that the total spin must remain zero at all times since the particles were originally entangled? So between the initial entanglement and the measurement, we cannot say one of the particles always has the same spin that will be found at measurement. It does not, as Einstein feared, follow "that each electron must be predisposed all along to be deflected the way it is." But can we say that the two spins, however indeterministic (5050) they may be individually, at all times between the initial entanglement and measurement, must be exactly opposite to one another. Otherwise a law of conservation, a deeper principle than either quantum or classical mechanics themselves, would be violated. As Maudlin correctly described this situation above, "the zspins of the particles are certain to have opposite values even though neither particle has a determinate zspin." Apart from the theory that properties like angular and linear momentum and energy are perfectly conserved quantities, the experiments of entangled particles spin always find spins exactly opposite when measured at the same angle. Theory and experiment together agree that conservation of the sum of two spins keeps the total spin zero, one up and one down, whatever the indeterministic nature might be of individual spin measurements. As Maudlin also says above, "there is no chance that both will be up or both down."
