科学哲学视角下的EPR悖论研究
|
摘要
1935年的EPR论战,引出了定域实在论与量子力学完备性之间的矛盾。1935年,薛定谔就把这一矛盾称为“EPR悖论”,随后这一说法分别被玻姆、贝尔等人采用。贝尔不等式提出至今已经有了许多相应的检验实验,这些实验被称为是对矛盾双方进行抉择的“判决性实验”。许多物理学家们希望借助这些判决性实验在定域实在论与量子力学完备性之间作出非此即彼的选择,希望实验结果能对一方是决定性地支持,对另一方是决定性地反驳。但是经过这么多年的努力,至今仍没有找到这种能够做出“最后判决”的实验。不过,在这探寻的过程中,却引出了非定域性,量子纠缠等问题,而这些问题正是量子技术发展的关键。EPR这一篇仅仅4页的论文,就像一把打开神秘宝藏的钥匙,引领着人们找到无数的智慧珍宝。
总起来说,过去70多年对EPR悖论的研究,主要可以分为两种进路。一种是哲学的,一种是科学的。在1935玻尔发表同名论文回应EPR论文以后的十几年里,对EPR悖论的讨论逐渐上升到哲学争论的层面。这一方面是由于当时物理学实验技术的限制以及社会环境的变化,另一方面也是因为爱因斯坦等人对于因果性,客观实在等哲学论题的关注,尤其是玻尔充满哲学意味的互补原理,使EPR悖论披上了厚厚的哲学外衣。按照这一线索发展下去就是延续到今天的关注量子力学对因果性与实在观所造成的重大影响的哲学研究进路；另一进路是科学的,1951年玻姆将ERP原文中的思想实验简化以后,就为用真实实验检验EPR悖论提供了可能性。随后贝尔不等式以及实验技术的发展,逐渐恢复了EPR悖论科学论题的身份。在这两种思路的影响下,EPR悖论问题俨然成了一种“实验的形而上学”’。
经过这么长时间,ERP悖论问题不管是在哲学形而上学方面的研究,还是科学实验方面的进展,都已经取得了大量的成绩。所以,如果我们再从上述两方面任一方面去研究EPR问题,都极有可能演变成对他人工作成果的简单重复,不仅是事倍功半,而且也无太多意义。不过,经过细致的分析考察,我们发现,关于EPR悖论,还有值得深入发掘之处,还有另外一条道路_科学哲学之路_可以选择。这个进路应该是前面两种进路的整合,它比形而上学的研究更具有实证性,比单纯的科学研究更具有思辨色彩,更能体现方法论在科学发展中的作用,更符合“实验的形而上学”精神。本文中我们将关注以下几个问题：
关于科学理性与科学信仰。科学家的理性建立在实验数据之上,他们尊重实验,尊重数据,所以才有了能量子,才有了光量子。科学家的信仰是建立在其科学信念之上的,爱因斯坦相信经典力学的严格因果性,所以爱因斯坦信仰的是“斯宾诺莎的上帝”。而玻尔的信念是不迷信任何既定体系,时刻欢迎新的问题,新的观点,所以才有了哥本哈根诠释。
关于判决性实验。在以往科学哲学界关于判决性实验的各种观点中,我们倾向于以下观点：判决性实验具有相对的判决效力。并且我们认为,判决效力相对性的根本原因在于作为基础的背景知识是相对可靠的、历史性的,在一定时代背景下被认为是可靠的背景知识,随着认识的逐步发展,很有可能就暴露出隐藏在其中的缺陷,虽然背景知识总是在历史过程中不断被修订,但永远不会达到绝对可靠性。那么建立在这样的背景知识之上的判决性实验也不能是绝对可靠的,所以一直以来被视为判决性实验的贝尔类型实验以及新型EPR悖论类型实验均不能作为EPR悖论问题的终极审判官。
关于悖论。悖论从字面上讲,它意指某种与通常接受的观点相反的东西。“悖论可以定义为从明显可接受的前提凭借明显可接受的推理而导出的不可接受的结论”。悖论的根源在于其看上去合理的前提(背景知识)实际上是有缺陷的,那么要想解决EPR悖论,就必须找出前提中有缺陷的地方。又由于背景知识的相对可靠性,悖论的解决也是相对的。霍华德所提出的“定域非分离性”就是从背景知识中去寻找解决悖论的突破口的成功案例。
关于思想实验与科学悖论在科学发展中的作用。思想实验在物理学史上尤其是近代物理学史上有着很重要的地位,许多伟大的思想都是通过思想实验而发现的,因而说思想实验是促进科学理论发现的重要方式,我们称之为“思想的铲子”；而科学悖论,则可以分为由具体理论或实际实验揭示出来的悖论,以及通过思想实验而得出的悖论,科学悖论的任务是对科学理论进行检验,揭示理论中所潜伏的深层矛盾,常常是元理论层面上的矛盾,所以我们把科学悖论称为“思想的显微镜”。有了这两种得力的工具,我们就可以在科学的进程中,既可以勇敢地进取又可以随时发现问题以便修正前进的方向。
关于微观粒子的个体性。个体性问题在量子力学诞生以后变得更加复杂了。个体性问题从“宏观物体的个体性如何具有的?”发展成“微观粒子是否具有个体性?”。微观粒子(全同粒子)的不可识别性以及量子系统的不可分离性(自我同一性丧失)使得部分科学家与哲学家得出结论说,微观粒子是没有个体性的。我们的观点则有所不同,首先“不可识别”并不等于“不可区分”,前者只是认识论意义上的概念,而后者才是本体论意义上的,所以“不可识别”的微观粒子仍旧可以是“可区分的”。而“可区分性”是个体性的一个充分条件,我们将通过粒子的“基数可区分性”来论证其仍然是具有个体性的,起码是部分的个体性；然后我们将引申“相对可分离的整体性”到“相对可分离的个体性”,指出量子系统的不可分离性并不等同于绝对不可分离的那种整体性,微观粒子仍然保留着自我同一性,也就是说个体性并没有完全丧失,而只是弱化到一定程度,显示出与宏观物体不同的个体性。从而也就说明量子系统具有弱化了的爱因斯坦意义上的“定域实在性”,EPR悖论也就得以消解。
关于狭义相对论与量子力学之间的协调。定域实在论与量子力学之间的对立,在更深层次上就意味着狭义相对论与量子力学这当代最伟大的两个研究纲领之间的对立,因为定域性实在论是狭义相对论的核心假说之一。对任何一方的放弃,即使是在情感上都是难以接受的,因此人们为了将二者协调起来消除EPR悖论付出了许多的努力,霍华德所提出的“定域的非分离性”就是最好的表率,而我们则从量子的“弱个体性”的新视角进行协调。一方面,量子纠缠与远程关联已经成为确凿的事实；另一方面,量子粒子的“实在性”并不因之丧失,相互作用仍然是定域的、非超距的。前者是量子力学家所断言的,后者则是爱因斯坦所希望的。因此,将量子力学与相对论二者协调起来,使它们“和平共存”是大有希望的。
The EPR argument in 1935 elicited the contradiction between local realism and the completeness of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger considered this contradiction as "EPR paradox" which was later accepted by David Bohm and John Bell. Since Bell Inequality was proposed, there have been many corresponding experiments and tests, which were regarded as "crucial experiments" to the decision between two sides of the contradiction. Many physicists expected that a clear-cut decision could be made between local realism and the completeness of quantum mechanics in virtue of these experimental results, that is to say, the experimental results could decisively support one while reject the other. However, the attempts to make such "last crucial" experiments still failed with so many years' efforts, Nevertheless, some problems like non-locality and quantum entanglement were produced in the process of pursuing for the critical experiments, and these problems were the key of developing quantum technology. The paper of EPR with just 4 pages, like a key to a mysterious treasure, had been leading people to find out innumerable wisdom treasures.
Generally speaking, the studies to the EPR paradox in the last seventies years mainly have two approaches:one is philosophical and the other is scientific. In more than ten years after Niels Bohr published the same-name paper to respond the EPR paradox in 1935, the argument for the EPR paradox gradually ascended to the philosophical level from the scientific level. That is partly because of the restrictions of physical experimental technology and the change of social environment, and on the other hand, the attention paid to some philosophical thesis such as causality and objective reality by Albert Einstein, and particularly Bohr's Complementary Principle with philosophical meaning gave EPR paradox much more philosophical impression. What followed from this route was the philosophical research approach which had continued to this day and focused on the important effects made on causality and reality by quantum mechanics. The other approach was scientific, and after Bohm simplified the thought experiment in EPR original paper in 1951, there was a possibility for employing true experiment to test EPR paradox. With the development of Bell Inequality and experimental technology, the identity of the scientific thesis about EPR paradox recovered. EPR paradox had become a kind of "experimental metaphysics" under the influence of these two approaches.
Many accomplishments have been made about the study of EPR paradox both metaphysically and scientifically for such a long time. Therefore, if we keep on studying EPR paradox either metaphysically or scientifically, it will be probably just a simple repetition of others'works, which may be not only cost too much time but also of little significance. Nonetheless, with careful investigation, we found that there will be many things to do about EPR paradox, and we can have another approach to choose, namely, the approach of philosophy of science. This kind of approach should be the integration of the previous two approaches, and it is more positive than the metaphysical approach, and more philosophical than the pure scientific approach. As a result, it will indicate the role of methodology played in scientific development more apparently, and will be more according with the spirit of "experimental metaphysics". This thesis will be concerned with the following problems.
The first problem is about scientific rationality and scientific belief. The rationality of scientists is based on experimental data. Because they respected experiments and data, they discovered energy quanta and light quantum. The belief of scientists is based on their scientific faith, for example, Einstein believes the strict causality of classical mechanics, so his belief is "Spinoza's God", while Bohr's belief is not enslaved to any given systems and welcoming new problems and new viewpoints in any time, so there is Copenhagen Interpretation.
The second problem is about critical experiment. Among various viewpoints about crucial experiments in philosophy of science, we are inclined to support the following point of view:crucial experiment has relative crucial effect. Moreover, we think that the relativity of crucial effect lies in the relative reliability and historicality of background knowledge as foundation. The reliable background knowledge in some historic time will probably expose its hidden defects with the development of our knowledge. The background knowledge will never obtain absolute reliability, even though it is endlessly revised in the historical course. Consequently, the crucial experiments based on such background knowledge are not absolute reliable as well, and for that reason Bell typed experiments which have been taken as crucial experiments and new EPR paradox typed experiments are not referred to as the ultimate judge for EPR paradox.
The third problem is about paradox. Literally, paradox means something contrary to the usual well-accepted point of view. "Paradox can be defined as unaccepted conclusion reliably deduced from the well-accepted premise." The root of paradox consists in that the seeming reasonable premise or background is flawed, so if we want to resolve the EPR paradox, we must find out something wrong with the premise. However, because of the relative reliability of background knowledge, the resolution of paradox is also relative." Local non-separability" proposed by Howard is a successful case of trying to solute paradox from background knowledge.
The fourth problem is about the role played by thought experiments and scientific paradox in scientific development. Thought experiments have played an important role in history of physics, especially in the contemporary history of physics. Many great thoughts were discovered through thought experiments, which are important way of promoting the discovery of scientific theories and can be viewed as "the shovel of thoughts". Scientific paradox can be divided into ones revealed by specific theories or actual experiment and ones derived from thought experiments. It aims to examine scientific theories and reveal the deep paradoxes concealed in theories which are usually the contradiction in meta-theory level, so we look on scientific paradox as " the microscope of thought". With these two powerful instruments, we can fearlessly proceed and discover problems at any time in order to revise the direction in the course of science.
The fifth problem is about the individuality of microscopic particles. The problem of individuality which evolved from "how macroscopic objects have individuality" to "whether microscopic particles have individuality or not", became more complicated after the naissance of quantum mechanics. The indiscernibility of microscopic particles (identical particles) and non-separability of quantum systems (the lost of self-identity) make some scientists and philosophers conclude that microscopic particles didn't have individuality. But we have different points of view. First of all, "indiscernibility "which is a concept epistemologically is not identical with "indistinguishability" which is a concept ontologically, so "indiscernible" microscopic particles might be still "distinguishable". "Distinguishablity" is a sufficient condition of individuality, and we will argue that distinguishablity has individuality (at least partial individuality) by means of "cardinal distinguishablity". Then we extend "the relative separable holism" to "the relative separable individuality", and point out that non-separablity of quantum systems is not identical with the absolute non-separable holism, because microscopic particles still keep their self-identity. That is to say, individuality doesn't totally lost and just weaken to some extent so that it indicates a kind of individuality different from macroscopic objects. Therefore, it could explain that quantum systems have weak "local realism" in Einstein's sense, in which sense EPR paradox can be resolved.
The last problem is about the coordination between special relativity and quantum mechanics. The contradiction between local realism and quantum mechanics in deep sense means the contradiction between special relativity and quantum mechanics which are contemporarily both the greatest research programs, because local realism is one of the core hypotheses of special relativity. Abandoning either one of them is unacceptable even emotionally, so people have done much efforts of coordinating them to eliminate EPR paradox. The'local non-separablity" proposed by Howard is a good example, which motivates us to coordinate them from the perspective of quantum's " weak individuality". On one hand, quantum entanglement and long-range correlation have become real facts, and on the other hand, "locality" of quantum particles doesn't lost, and interaction is still local and non=act-at-a-distance. The former is asserted by quantum physicists, while the latter is expected by Einstein. Therefore, coordinating quantum mechanics and relativity to make them "peacefully coexist" is of great possibility.
总起来说,过去70多年对EPR悖论的研究,主要可以分为两种进路。一种是哲学的,一种是科学的。在1935玻尔发表同名论文回应EPR论文以后的十几年里,对EPR悖论的讨论逐渐上升到哲学争论的层面。这一方面是由于当时物理学实验技术的限制以及社会环境的变化,另一方面也是因为爱因斯坦等人对于因果性,客观实在等哲学论题的关注,尤其是玻尔充满哲学意味的互补原理,使EPR悖论披上了厚厚的哲学外衣。按照这一线索发展下去就是延续到今天的关注量子力学对因果性与实在观所造成的重大影响的哲学研究进路；另一进路是科学的,1951年玻姆将ERP原文中的思想实验简化以后,就为用真实实验检验EPR悖论提供了可能性。随后贝尔不等式以及实验技术的发展,逐渐恢复了EPR悖论科学论题的身份。在这两种思路的影响下,EPR悖论问题俨然成了一种“实验的形而上学”’。
经过这么长时间,ERP悖论问题不管是在哲学形而上学方面的研究,还是科学实验方面的进展,都已经取得了大量的成绩。所以,如果我们再从上述两方面任一方面去研究EPR问题,都极有可能演变成对他人工作成果的简单重复,不仅是事倍功半,而且也无太多意义。不过,经过细致的分析考察,我们发现,关于EPR悖论,还有值得深入发掘之处,还有另外一条道路_科学哲学之路_可以选择。这个进路应该是前面两种进路的整合,它比形而上学的研究更具有实证性,比单纯的科学研究更具有思辨色彩,更能体现方法论在科学发展中的作用,更符合“实验的形而上学”精神。本文中我们将关注以下几个问题：
关于科学理性与科学信仰。科学家的理性建立在实验数据之上,他们尊重实验,尊重数据,所以才有了能量子,才有了光量子。科学家的信仰是建立在其科学信念之上的,爱因斯坦相信经典力学的严格因果性,所以爱因斯坦信仰的是“斯宾诺莎的上帝”。而玻尔的信念是不迷信任何既定体系,时刻欢迎新的问题,新的观点,所以才有了哥本哈根诠释。
关于判决性实验。在以往科学哲学界关于判决性实验的各种观点中,我们倾向于以下观点：判决性实验具有相对的判决效力。并且我们认为,判决效力相对性的根本原因在于作为基础的背景知识是相对可靠的、历史性的,在一定时代背景下被认为是可靠的背景知识,随着认识的逐步发展,很有可能就暴露出隐藏在其中的缺陷,虽然背景知识总是在历史过程中不断被修订,但永远不会达到绝对可靠性。那么建立在这样的背景知识之上的判决性实验也不能是绝对可靠的,所以一直以来被视为判决性实验的贝尔类型实验以及新型EPR悖论类型实验均不能作为EPR悖论问题的终极审判官。
关于悖论。悖论从字面上讲,它意指某种与通常接受的观点相反的东西。“悖论可以定义为从明显可接受的前提凭借明显可接受的推理而导出的不可接受的结论”。悖论的根源在于其看上去合理的前提(背景知识)实际上是有缺陷的,那么要想解决EPR悖论,就必须找出前提中有缺陷的地方。又由于背景知识的相对可靠性,悖论的解决也是相对的。霍华德所提出的“定域非分离性”就是从背景知识中去寻找解决悖论的突破口的成功案例。
关于思想实验与科学悖论在科学发展中的作用。思想实验在物理学史上尤其是近代物理学史上有着很重要的地位,许多伟大的思想都是通过思想实验而发现的,因而说思想实验是促进科学理论发现的重要方式,我们称之为“思想的铲子”；而科学悖论,则可以分为由具体理论或实际实验揭示出来的悖论,以及通过思想实验而得出的悖论,科学悖论的任务是对科学理论进行检验,揭示理论中所潜伏的深层矛盾,常常是元理论层面上的矛盾,所以我们把科学悖论称为“思想的显微镜”。有了这两种得力的工具,我们就可以在科学的进程中,既可以勇敢地进取又可以随时发现问题以便修正前进的方向。
关于微观粒子的个体性。个体性问题在量子力学诞生以后变得更加复杂了。个体性问题从“宏观物体的个体性如何具有的?”发展成“微观粒子是否具有个体性?”。微观粒子(全同粒子)的不可识别性以及量子系统的不可分离性(自我同一性丧失)使得部分科学家与哲学家得出结论说,微观粒子是没有个体性的。我们的观点则有所不同,首先“不可识别”并不等于“不可区分”,前者只是认识论意义上的概念,而后者才是本体论意义上的,所以“不可识别”的微观粒子仍旧可以是“可区分的”。而“可区分性”是个体性的一个充分条件,我们将通过粒子的“基数可区分性”来论证其仍然是具有个体性的,起码是部分的个体性；然后我们将引申“相对可分离的整体性”到“相对可分离的个体性”,指出量子系统的不可分离性并不等同于绝对不可分离的那种整体性,微观粒子仍然保留着自我同一性,也就是说个体性并没有完全丧失,而只是弱化到一定程度,显示出与宏观物体不同的个体性。从而也就说明量子系统具有弱化了的爱因斯坦意义上的“定域实在性”,EPR悖论也就得以消解。
关于狭义相对论与量子力学之间的协调。定域实在论与量子力学之间的对立,在更深层次上就意味着狭义相对论与量子力学这当代最伟大的两个研究纲领之间的对立,因为定域性实在论是狭义相对论的核心假说之一。对任何一方的放弃,即使是在情感上都是难以接受的,因此人们为了将二者协调起来消除EPR悖论付出了许多的努力,霍华德所提出的“定域的非分离性”就是最好的表率,而我们则从量子的“弱个体性”的新视角进行协调。一方面,量子纠缠与远程关联已经成为确凿的事实；另一方面,量子粒子的“实在性”并不因之丧失,相互作用仍然是定域的、非超距的。前者是量子力学家所断言的,后者则是爱因斯坦所希望的。因此,将量子力学与相对论二者协调起来,使它们“和平共存”是大有希望的。
The EPR argument in 1935 elicited the contradiction between local realism and the completeness of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger considered this contradiction as "EPR paradox" which was later accepted by David Bohm and John Bell. Since Bell Inequality was proposed, there have been many corresponding experiments and tests, which were regarded as "crucial experiments" to the decision between two sides of the contradiction. Many physicists expected that a clear-cut decision could be made between local realism and the completeness of quantum mechanics in virtue of these experimental results, that is to say, the experimental results could decisively support one while reject the other. However, the attempts to make such "last crucial" experiments still failed with so many years' efforts, Nevertheless, some problems like non-locality and quantum entanglement were produced in the process of pursuing for the critical experiments, and these problems were the key of developing quantum technology. The paper of EPR with just 4 pages, like a key to a mysterious treasure, had been leading people to find out innumerable wisdom treasures.
Generally speaking, the studies to the EPR paradox in the last seventies years mainly have two approaches:one is philosophical and the other is scientific. In more than ten years after Niels Bohr published the same-name paper to respond the EPR paradox in 1935, the argument for the EPR paradox gradually ascended to the philosophical level from the scientific level. That is partly because of the restrictions of physical experimental technology and the change of social environment, and on the other hand, the attention paid to some philosophical thesis such as causality and objective reality by Albert Einstein, and particularly Bohr's Complementary Principle with philosophical meaning gave EPR paradox much more philosophical impression. What followed from this route was the philosophical research approach which had continued to this day and focused on the important effects made on causality and reality by quantum mechanics. The other approach was scientific, and after Bohm simplified the thought experiment in EPR original paper in 1951, there was a possibility for employing true experiment to test EPR paradox. With the development of Bell Inequality and experimental technology, the identity of the scientific thesis about EPR paradox recovered. EPR paradox had become a kind of "experimental metaphysics" under the influence of these two approaches.
Many accomplishments have been made about the study of EPR paradox both metaphysically and scientifically for such a long time. Therefore, if we keep on studying EPR paradox either metaphysically or scientifically, it will be probably just a simple repetition of others'works, which may be not only cost too much time but also of little significance. Nonetheless, with careful investigation, we found that there will be many things to do about EPR paradox, and we can have another approach to choose, namely, the approach of philosophy of science. This kind of approach should be the integration of the previous two approaches, and it is more positive than the metaphysical approach, and more philosophical than the pure scientific approach. As a result, it will indicate the role of methodology played in scientific development more apparently, and will be more according with the spirit of "experimental metaphysics". This thesis will be concerned with the following problems.
The first problem is about scientific rationality and scientific belief. The rationality of scientists is based on experimental data. Because they respected experiments and data, they discovered energy quanta and light quantum. The belief of scientists is based on their scientific faith, for example, Einstein believes the strict causality of classical mechanics, so his belief is "Spinoza's God", while Bohr's belief is not enslaved to any given systems and welcoming new problems and new viewpoints in any time, so there is Copenhagen Interpretation.
The second problem is about critical experiment. Among various viewpoints about crucial experiments in philosophy of science, we are inclined to support the following point of view:crucial experiment has relative crucial effect. Moreover, we think that the relativity of crucial effect lies in the relative reliability and historicality of background knowledge as foundation. The reliable background knowledge in some historic time will probably expose its hidden defects with the development of our knowledge. The background knowledge will never obtain absolute reliability, even though it is endlessly revised in the historical course. Consequently, the crucial experiments based on such background knowledge are not absolute reliable as well, and for that reason Bell typed experiments which have been taken as crucial experiments and new EPR paradox typed experiments are not referred to as the ultimate judge for EPR paradox.
The third problem is about paradox. Literally, paradox means something contrary to the usual well-accepted point of view. "Paradox can be defined as unaccepted conclusion reliably deduced from the well-accepted premise." The root of paradox consists in that the seeming reasonable premise or background is flawed, so if we want to resolve the EPR paradox, we must find out something wrong with the premise. However, because of the relative reliability of background knowledge, the resolution of paradox is also relative." Local non-separability" proposed by Howard is a successful case of trying to solute paradox from background knowledge.
The fourth problem is about the role played by thought experiments and scientific paradox in scientific development. Thought experiments have played an important role in history of physics, especially in the contemporary history of physics. Many great thoughts were discovered through thought experiments, which are important way of promoting the discovery of scientific theories and can be viewed as "the shovel of thoughts". Scientific paradox can be divided into ones revealed by specific theories or actual experiment and ones derived from thought experiments. It aims to examine scientific theories and reveal the deep paradoxes concealed in theories which are usually the contradiction in meta-theory level, so we look on scientific paradox as " the microscope of thought". With these two powerful instruments, we can fearlessly proceed and discover problems at any time in order to revise the direction in the course of science.
The fifth problem is about the individuality of microscopic particles. The problem of individuality which evolved from "how macroscopic objects have individuality" to "whether microscopic particles have individuality or not", became more complicated after the naissance of quantum mechanics. The indiscernibility of microscopic particles (identical particles) and non-separability of quantum systems (the lost of self-identity) make some scientists and philosophers conclude that microscopic particles didn't have individuality. But we have different points of view. First of all, "indiscernibility "which is a concept epistemologically is not identical with "indistinguishability" which is a concept ontologically, so "indiscernible" microscopic particles might be still "distinguishable". "Distinguishablity" is a sufficient condition of individuality, and we will argue that distinguishablity has individuality (at least partial individuality) by means of "cardinal distinguishablity". Then we extend "the relative separable holism" to "the relative separable individuality", and point out that non-separablity of quantum systems is not identical with the absolute non-separable holism, because microscopic particles still keep their self-identity. That is to say, individuality doesn't totally lost and just weaken to some extent so that it indicates a kind of individuality different from macroscopic objects. Therefore, it could explain that quantum systems have weak "local realism" in Einstein's sense, in which sense EPR paradox can be resolved.
The last problem is about the coordination between special relativity and quantum mechanics. The contradiction between local realism and quantum mechanics in deep sense means the contradiction between special relativity and quantum mechanics which are contemporarily both the greatest research programs, because local realism is one of the core hypotheses of special relativity. Abandoning either one of them is unacceptable even emotionally, so people have done much efforts of coordinating them to eliminate EPR paradox. The'local non-separablity" proposed by Howard is a good example, which motivates us to coordinate them from the perspective of quantum's " weak individuality". On one hand, quantum entanglement and long-range correlation have become real facts, and on the other hand, "locality" of quantum particles doesn't lost, and interaction is still local and non=act-at-a-distance. The former is asserted by quantum physicists, while the latter is expected by Einstein. Therefore, coordinating quantum mechanics and relativity to make them "peacefully coexist" is of great possibility.
引文
[1]Allison, H. E. Kant's Transcendental Idealism[M]. Yale:Yale University Press,1983.
[2]Achinstein, P. Particles and Waves:Historical Essays in the Philosophy of Science[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991
[3]A. T. Nicol. Indivisible Lines[J]. The Classical Quarterly, Vol.30, No.2 (Apr., 1936), pp.120-126
[4]A. H. Klotz. On the Nature of Quantum Mechanics[J]. Synthese, Vol.77, No.2 (Nov.,1988), pp.139-193
[5]Anthony O'Hear. Science and Religion[J], The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.44, No.3 (Sep.,1993), pp.505-516
[6]Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and Gerard Roger. Experimental Tests if Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.47,No.7,17 August 1981.460-463.
[7]Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and Gerard Roger. Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment:A New Vialation of Bell's Inequalities [J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.49, No.2,12 July 1982.91-94
[8]Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gerard Roger. Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers [J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.49, No.25,20 Dce.1982.1804-1807.
[9]A.Einstein, B.Podolsky, N.Rosen. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? [J].Physical Review, Volume 47, May 15,1935.777-780
[10]Alberto Cordero. Realism and Underdetermination:Some Clues from the Practices-Up [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.68, No.3, Supplement:Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers (Sep.,2001), pp. S301-S312
[11]ARTHUR JABS. An Interpretation of the Formalism of Quantum Mechanics in Terms of Epistemological Realism [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.43, No.3 (Sep.,1992), pp.405-421
[12]Arthur Fine. Correlations and Physical Locality [J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1980, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1980), pp.535-562
[13]A. Shimony. Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics.II[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.9, No.8,15 April 1974.2321-2323.
[14]Ayman F. Abouraddy, Timothy Yarnall, Bahaa E. A. Saleh and Malvin C. Teich, Violation of Bell's inequality with continuous spatial variables[J]. Physical Review A 75,052114 (2007)1-13.
[15]Ashok Kumar Gangadean. Formal Ontology and the Dialectical Transformation of Consciousness[J], Philosophy East and West, Vol.29, No.1 (Jan.,1979), pp. 21-48
[16]Adonai S. Sant'Anna. Elementary Particles, Hidden Variables, and Hidden Predicates [J]. Synthese, Vol.125, No.1/2
[17]Arthur Fine. On the Completeness of Quantum Theory [J]. Synthese.Vol.29, No. 1/4, Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics (Dec.,1974), pp.257-289
[18]Buchwald, J. Z. The Rise of the Wave Theory of Light [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1989
[19]Bohr, N. Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge [M]. New York:Wley,1963.
[20]Bohm, David, and Basil J. Hiley. The Undivided Universe:An Ontological Inter-pretation of Quantum Theory [M]. London:Routledge,1993.
[21]B. J. Hiley, David Joseph Bohm.20 December 1917-27 October 1992[J]. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol.43 (Nov.,1997), pp. 107-131
[22]Barry Loewer. Review:Copenhagen versus Bohmian Interpretations of Quantum Theory [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.49, No.2 (Jun., 1998), pp.317-328
[23]Bas C. Van Fraassen. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox [J]. Synthese, Vol. 29, No.1/4, Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics (Dec.,1974), pp. 291-309
[24]Brent Mundy. Special Relativity and Quantum Measurement [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.37, No.2 (Jun.,1986), pp.207-212
[25]Brian Skyrms. Counterfactual Definiteness and Local Causation [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.49, No.1 (Mar.,1982), pp.43-50
[26]C.Weiner ed. History of Twentienth Century Physics [M]. Academic Press,1977
[27]Cushing, J. and E. McMullin. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Re- flections on Bell's Theorem [M]. Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press,1989
[28]C. A. Hooker. Against Krip's Resolution Of Two Paradoxes in Quatum Mechaniscs[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.38, No.3 (Sep.,1971), pp.418-428.
[29]C. A. Hooker. On Global Theories [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.42, No.2 (Jun.,1975), pp.152-179
[30]C. A. Hooker. Projection, Physical Intelligibility, Objectivity and Completeness: The Divergent Ideals of Bohr and Einstein[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.42, No.4 (Dec.,1991), pp.491-511
[31]C. A. Hooker. Sharp and the Refutation of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.38, No.2 (Jun.,1971), pp.224-233
[32]Carl R. Hausman. Metaphors, Referents, and Individuality [J]. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.42, No.2 (Winter,1983), pp.181-195
[33]Chas. A. Mercier. Individuality [J]. Mind, New Series, Vol.27, No.105 (Jan.,1918), pp.22-39
[34]Chuang Liu. Potential, Propensity, and Categorical Realism[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.45, No.1 (Jul.,1996), pp.45-68
[35]Chris Eliasmith and Paul Thagard. Waves, Particles, and Explanatory Coherence[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.48, No.1 (Mar.,1997), pp. 1-19
[36]Christopher Read Hitchcock. Causal Explanation and Scientific Realism[J] Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.37, No.2 (Sep.,1992), pp.151-178.
[37]Dickson, W. Michael. Quantum Chance and Nonlocality [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1998
[38]Daniel M. Hausman. Lessons from Quantum Mechanics [J]. Synthese, Vol.121, No.1/2, Statistics and Causation (1999), pp.79-92
[39]Daniel Schoch. On the Formal Connection of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument to Quantum Mechanics and Reality [J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.29, No. 2 (Sep.,1988), pp.269-278
[40]Darrin W. Belousek. Underdetermination, Realism, and Theory Appraisal:An Epistemological Reflection on Quantum Mechanics [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.35, No.4, April 2005.669-694.
[41]David Albert and Barry Loewer. Wanted Dead or Alive:Two Attempts to Solve Schrodinger's Paradox[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1990, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1990), pp.277-285
[42]David A. Edwards. The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics [J] Synthese, Vol.42, No.1, Issues in the Philosophy of Physics (Sep.,1979), pp.1-70
[43]Decio Krause and Steven French. Formal Framework For Quantum Non-individuality* Abstract [J]. Synthese, Vol.102, No.1 (Jan.,1995), pp. 195-214
[44]Decio Krause. Remarks on Quantum Ontology[J]. Synthese, Vol.125, No.1/2, Festschrift in Honor of Newton C. A. Da Costa on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Oct.-Nov.,2000), pp.155-167
[45]Dennis Dieks. Quantum Statistics, Identical Particles and Correlations[J]. Synthese, Vol.82, No.1 (Jan.,1990), pp.127-155
[46]Don Howord. Locality, separability, and the physical implications of the bell experiments. Boston Unversity preprint.1987.
[47]Don Howord. Einstein on locality and separability [J]. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,1985(16):171-201
[48]Don Howord. Holism, Separability, and The Metaphysical Implications of The Bell Expriments, In Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem, ed.James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.224-253.
[49]Earman. John, A Primer on Determinism [M]. Boston:D. Reidel,1986.
[50]Edward MacKinnon. Schwinger and the Ontology of Quantum Field Theory [J]. Found Sci. (2007) 12:295-323.
[51]E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones. H. M. Wiseman, M. D. Reid, Experimental criteria for steering and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox[J]. Physical Review A 80, 032112 (2009).1-15.
[52]E. Jordan. Possession and Individuality [J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.31, No. 4 (Jul.,1922), pp.369-387
[53]E. J. Lowe. Identity, Individuality, and Unity [J]. Philosophy, Vol.78, No.305 (Jul., 2003), pp.321-336
[54]E. Jordan. The Definition of Individuality[J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.30, No.6 (Nov.,1921), pp.566-584
[55]Emilio Santos. The Failure to Perform a Loophole-Free Test of Bell's'Inequality Supports Local Realism [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.34, No.11, November 2004.1643-1672
[56]F.Belinfante. A Survey of Hidden Variables Theories [M]. Oxford:Pergamon Press, 1973
[57]Federico Laudisa. A Note on Nonlocality, Causation, and Lorentz Invariance[J].Philosophy of Science, Vol.66, pp. S72-S81
[58]Federico Laudisa. Einstein, Bell, and Nonseparable Realism[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.46, No.3 (Sep.,1995), pp.309-329
[59]F. Winterberg. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics as a Consequence of the Planck Mass Plasma Conjecture [J]. Int J Theor Phys (2007) 46:3294-3311
[60]Frank Arntzenius. Physics and Common Causes [J]. Synthese, Vol.82, No.1 (Jan., 1990), pp.77-96
[61]Frank Arntzenius. Relativistic Hidden Variable Theories? [J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.41, No.2 (Sep.,1994), pp.207-231
[62]Frederick M. Kronz. EPR:The Correlations Are Still a Mystery [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.55, No.4 (Dec.,1988), pp.631-639
[63]Frederick M. Kronz. Hidden Locality, Conspiracy and Superluminal Signals [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.57, No.3 (Sep.,1990), pp.420-444
[64]Frederick M. Kronz. Jarrett Completeness and Superluminal Signals[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1990, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1990), pp.227-239
[65]Frederick M. Kronz. Nonseparability and Quantum Chaos [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.65, No.1 (Mar.,1998), pp.50-75
[66]Frederic Sontag.Individuality and Philosophic Advance[J]. American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.15, No.3 (Jul.,1978), pp.235-238
[67]G. Di Giuseppe, F. de Martini, D. Boschi. Test of the Violation of Local Realism in Quantum Mechanics with No Use of Bell's Inequalities [J].Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 45, No.2/3, Probability, Dynamics and Causality (Nov.,1996), pp.367-377
[68]Gabor Hofer-Szabo, Miklos Redei, Laszlo E. Szabo. Common-Causes Are Not Common Common-Causes [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.69, No.4 (Dec.,2002), pp.623-636
[69]Gregg Jaeger, A.Shimony, and Lev Vaidman. Two interferometric Complementarities [J], Physical ReviewA,Vol.51, No.1, January1995.54-67.
[70]Gregg Jaeger, Michael A.Horne and Abner Shimony. Complementarity of one-particle and two-particle interference [J]. Physical Review A,Vol.48, No.2 January1993.1023-1027.
[71]Gen-Ichiro Nagasaka. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Reexamined Author[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1970 (1970), pp.437-445
[72]Geoffrey Hellman. EPR, Bell, and Collapse:A Route around "Stochastic" Hidden Variables [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.54, No.4 (Dec.,1987), pp.558-576
[73]Geoffrey Hellman. Stochastic Einstein-Locality and the Bell Theorems [J]. Synthese, Vol.53, No.3 (Dec.,1982), pp.461-504
[74]Geoffrey Hellman. Stochastic Locality and the Bell Theorems [J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1982, Volume Two:Symposia and Invited Papers (1982), pp.601-615
[75]Gerhard Schurz and Karel Lambert. Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding[J]. Synthese, Vol.101, No.1 (Oct.,1994), pp.65-120
[76]J. Gracia. The Ontological Status of Individuality[J]. Manuscrito,1986(9):51-74.
[77]Hans Burkhardt & Barry Smith (eds.).Handbook of Metaphysics and ontology[J]. Philosophia Verlag.1991.238-239.
[78]H. Brown and R. Harry, eds. Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1988
[79]Haag, Rudolf. Local Quantum Physics[M]. New York:Springer,1992.
[80]Healey, R. A.. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics:an Interactive Interpretation [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1989
[81]Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy[M]. New York:Harper& Row,1958
[82]Heisenberg, W. Physics and Beyond[M]. New York:Harper& Row,1971
[83]Hesse, M. B. The Structure of Scientific Inference[M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1974.
[84]Holland, Peter R. The Quantum Theory of Motion:An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1993
[85]Hans Burkhardt& Barry Smith (eds.).Handbook of Metaphysics and ontology [J], Philosophia Verlag.1991.238-239.
[86]Hans Halvorson and Rob Clifton. No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories?[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.69, No.1 (Mar.,2002), pp.1-28
[87]Hasok Chang and Nancy Cartwright. Causality and Realism in the EPR Experiment[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.38, No.2, Special Issue on Philosophy of Science (Mar.,1993), pp.169-190.
[88]Heinz Post. The Problem of Atomism[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.26, No.1 (Mar.,1975), pp.19-26
[89]Henry Krips. Realism and the Collapse of the Wave-Packet[J].The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.39, No.2 (Jun.,1988), pp.225-232
[90]Henry P. Stapp. Quantum Interactive Dualism, II:The Libet and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Causal Anomalies[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.65, No. 1, Prospects for Dualism:Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2006), pp.117-142
[91]Howord Stein. Is There A Problem of interpreting quantum mechnics?[J]. Nous,1970,4:93-103
[92]Hector-Neri Castaneda. Individuation and Non-Identity:A New Look [J] American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.12, No.2 (Apr.,1975), pp.131-140
[93]Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-idind/
[94]Ingemar Nordin. Determinism and Locality in Quantum Mechanics[J]. Synthese, Vol.42, No.1, Issues in the Philosophy of Physics (Sep.,1979), pp.71-90
[95]James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin ed. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem [G]. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.
[96]J.S.Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics[G]. Cambridge University Press,2004
[97]J. Butterfield and C. Pagonis, eds. From Physics to Philosophy[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1999
[98]J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek,eds, Quantum Theory and Measurement [M]. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1983.
[99]J. Subramanyam. Measurement and the Justification of the Statistical Postulate in Bohm's Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics[J]. Synthese, Vol.113, No.3 (1997/1998), pp.423-444
[100]J. A. Leighton. The Study of Individuality [J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.11, No.6 (Nov.,1902), pp.565-575
[101]James Robert Brown. Realism, Miracles, and the Common Cause[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1982, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1982), pp.98-106
[102]James Robert Brown. The Miracle of Science [J].The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No.128, Special Issue:Scientific Realism (Jul.,1982), pp.232-244
[103]James T. Cushing. Causality as an Overarching Principle in Physics[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1986, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1986), pp.3-11.
[104]James T. Cushing. Locality/Separability:Is This Necessarily a Useful Distinction?[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1994, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1994), pp. 107-116
[105]Jeffrey Bub.The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.40, No.2 (Jun.,1989), pp.191-211
[106]Jeremy Butterfield and Gordon N. Fleming. Quantum Theory and the Mind[J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol.69 (1995), pp.113-173
[107]Jeremy Butterfield. Causal Independence in EPR Arguments[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1990, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1990), pp.213-225.
[108]Jeremy Butterfield. David Lewis Meets John Bell[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 59, No.1 (Mar.,1992), pp.26-43
[109]John F. Clauser, Michael A. Home, Abner Shimony and Richard A.Holt. Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.23, No.15,13 OCT.1969.880-884.
[110]Jon Jarrett. Bell's theorem, Quantum Mechanics, and Locality Realism. Dissertation,University of Chicago.1983
[111]Jon Jarrett. On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments [J]. Nous18:569-589,1984.
[112]Jon Jarrett. Does Bell's theorem apply to theories that admit time-dependent states? In New techniques and Ideas in quantum measurement theory, ed Greenberger, Daniel M.. Annals of the Newyork Academy of Science, vol.480:428-437.1986.
[113]Joel L.Lebowitz. and A. Shimony, Statistical Mechanics of Open Systems[J].Physical Review,Vol.128,No.4,Nov.15,1962.1945-1958.
[114]John C. Howell, Ryan S. Bennink, Sean J. Bentley, and R.W. Boyd. Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Using Momentumand Position-Entangled Photons from Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.92,No.21,28 May 2004.210403(1-3)
[115]Jeffrey A. Barret. Are Our Best Physical Theories (Probably and/or Approximately) True?[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.70, No.5, Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I:Contributed Papers (Dec., 2003), pp.1206-1218
[116]Jeremy Butterfield. Bell's Theorem:What It Takes[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.43, No.1 (Mar.,1992), pp.41-83
[117]John White. Conceptions of Individuality[J]. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.28, No.3 (Oct.,1980), pp.173-186s
[118]J.S.Bell.On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen[J]. Physics 1(1964)195-200.
[119]John G. Cramer. Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.22,-No.2 15 July 1980.362-376.
[120]Katherine Bedard. Bohm, Spin, and the Bell Inequalities[J]. Synthese, Vol.114, No. 3 (Mar.,1998), pp.405-444
[121]Katherine Bedard. Material Objects in Bohm's Interpretation[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.66, No.2 (Jun.,1999), pp.221-242
[122]Katherine Hawley. Indeterminism and Indeterminacy[J]. Analysis, Vol.58, No.2 (Apr.,1998), pp.101-106
[123]Katherine Bedard. Reply to "Quantum Tunneling Times:A Crucial Test For The Causal Program?"[J]. Foundations of Physics Letters, VoL 10, No.2,1997.183-187
[124]Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery [M],2nded. New York:Basic Books.1968.
[125]Knorr, K. C. The Manufacture of Knowledge[M]. New York:Pergamon Press,: 1981
[126]Lowe, E. J. The Possibility of Metaphysics[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1998
[127]Lewis, D. On the Plurality of Worlds[M]. Oxford:Blackwell.1986
[128]Leibuniz. Philosophical Essays[M]. Indianapolis:Hacke.1991.
[129]Loux, M. Substance and Attribute [M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel,1978
[130]Laudan, L. Science and Hypothesis [M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel,1981
[131]Lev Vaidman. On the Paradoxical Aspects of New Quantum Experiments[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1994, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1994), pp.211-217
[132]Linda Wessels. Locality, Factorability and The Bell Inequalities [J]. Nous, Vol.19, No.4 (Dec.,1985), pp.481-519
[133]Linda Wessels. The 'EPR' Argument:A Post-Mortem[J]. Philosophical Studies:An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol.40, No.1 (Jul., 1981), pp.3-30
[134]M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley &Sons,1974.
[135]Maudlin. Tim, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity[M]. Cambridge:Blackwell. 1994
[136]Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality[M]. New York:McGraw Hill,1950
[137]Mehra, J. and H. Rechenberg. The Historical Development of Quantum Theory[M]. New York:Springer-Verlag,1982
[138]Michael Redhead. From Physics to Metaphysics[M]. Cambridge:Cam-bridge University Press.1995
[139]Mertz, D. Moderate Realism and its Logic [M]. Yale:Yale University Press,:1996
[140]Moore, G. E., Philosophical Studies[M]. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922
[141]Marcello Guarini. Bohm's Metaphors, Causality, and the Quantum Potential [J] Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.59, No.1 (Jul.,2003), pp.77-95.
[142]M.D.Reid, P.D.Drummond, W.P.Bowen, E.GCavalcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A.Bachor, U.L.Andersen and G Leuchs. Colloquium:The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: From concepts to applications [J]. Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol.81, No.4, October-December 2009,1728-1748
[143]Malcolm R. Forster. Counterfactual Reasoning in the Bell-Epr Paradox[M]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.53, No.1 (Mar.,1986), pp.133-144.
[144]Matteo Morganti. On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism[M]. Synthese, Vol.142, No.1 (Oct.,2004), pp.81-107.
[145]M. Freyberger, P. K. Aravind, M. A. Home and A. Shimony. Proposed test of Bell's inequality without a detection loophole by using entangled Rydberg atoms[J]. Physical Review A,Vol.53,No.3 MAR.1996.1232-1244.
[146]Mary H.Fehrs, and A. Shimony. Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics.Ⅰ[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.9, No.8,15 April 1974.2317-2320.
[147]Marion Crane Carroll. The Principle of Individuality in the Metaphysics of Bernard Bosanquet[J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.30, No.1 (Jan.,1921), pp.1-23.
[148]Mauro Dorato. On Becoming, Relativity, and Nonseparability [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.63, No.4 (Dec.,1996), pp.585-604.
[149]Michael Huemer and Ben Kovitz. Causation as Simultaneous and Continuous [J]. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.53, No.213 (Oct.,2003), pp.556-565.
[150]Michel Paty. The Quantum and Classical Domains as Provisional Parallel Coexistents [J]. Synthese, Vol.125, No.1/2, Festschrift in Honor of Newton C. A. Da Costa on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Oct.-Nov.,2000), pp. 179-200.
[151]Michael Redhead and Harvey Brown. Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics[J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol.65 (1991), pp. 119-159.
[152]Michael.Walicki. Reference, Paradoxes and Truth[J].Synthese,(2009) 171:195-226.
[153]Neumann, von J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics[M]. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1955
[154]Nuel Belnap. No-Common-Cause Epr-Like Funny Business in Branching Space-Times [J]. Philosophical Studies:An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol.114, No.3 (Jun.,2003), pp.199-221
[155]N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
[156]N. David Mermin. The (Non)World (Non)View of Quantum Mechanics[J]. New Literary History, Vol.23, No.4, Papers from the Commonwealth Center for Literary and Cultural Change (Autumn,1992), pp.855-875
[157]Nicholas Maxwell. Quantum Propensiton Theory:A Testable Resolution of the Wave/Particle Dilemma[J], The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 39,No.1 (Mar.,1988), pp.1-50
[158]Nick Huggett, What Are Quanta, and Why Does It Matter?[J], PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1994, Volume Two:Symposia and Invited Papers (1994), pp.69-76
[159]Norwood Russell Hanson, Waves, Particles, and Newton's 'Fits'[J], Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol.21, No.3 (Jul.-Sep.,1960), pp.370-391
[160]Olival Freire Jr.. The Historical Roots of "Foundations of Quantum Physics" as a Field of Research(1950-1970)[J], Foundations of Physics, Vol.34,No.11, November 2004.1741-1760.
[161]O. Costa de Beauregard. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics as a Telegraph [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.31, No.5,2001.837-848
[162]Otto Neurath.Unified Science and Its Encyclopaedia [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No.2 (Apr.,1937), pp.265-277
[163]P. B. Treacy. Role of locality in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations and teleportation[J]. Physical Review A 67,014101 (2003).1-4.
[164]Parthaghose. Violation of signal locality and unitarity in a merger of quantum mechanics and general relativity[J]. PRAMANA-journal of physics, Vol.49, No. 1, July 1997.65-69
[165]Paul K. Feyerabend. On a Recent Critique of Complementarity:Part Ⅱ[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.36, No.1 (Mar.,1969), pp.82-105
[166]Patrick Suppes. Some Remarks on Hidden Variables and the EPR Paradox[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.16, No.3, Measurement, Probability and Quantum Mechanics, Part 2 (Nov.,1981), pp.311-314
[167]Paul Teller. The Projection Postulate:A New Perspective [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.51, No.3 (Sep.,1984), pp.369-395
[168]Peter Milne. Physical Probabilities [J]. Synthese, Vol.73, No.2 (Nov.,1987), pp. 329-359
[169]Peter Simons. On Being the Same Ship(s)-or Electron(s):Reply to Hughes[J]. Mind, New Series, Vol.106, No.424 (Oct.,1997), pp.761-767
[170]Philip G. Burke and Ian C. Percival. John Stewart Bell.28 July 1928-1 October 1990[J]. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol.45 (Nov., 1999), pp.3-17.
[171]Peter Pesic. Seeing Double:Shared Identities in Physics, Philosophy, and Literature[M]. The MIT Press,2002.
[172]Peter Gibbins. Particles and Paradoxes[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
[173]Penrose,Roger,and Christopher J.Isham, ed. Quantum Concepts in Space and Tim[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1986
[174]Peshkin, M. and A. Tonomura. The Aharonov-Bohm Effect[M]. New York: Springer Verlag,1989.
[175]Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery[M]. London:Hutchinson,1980.
[176]Popper, K. R. A World of Propensities[M]. Bristol:Thoemmes,1990
[177]Psillos, S. Scientific Realism:How Science Tracks Truth [M]. London: Routledge,1999
[178]R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin:Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.
[179]Redhead. M. From Physics to Metaphysics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995
[180]Redhead. M. L. G., Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.1987
[181]Richard J.Blackwell. A Bibliography of the philosophy of Science,1945-1981 [M]. USA:Greenwood Press.1983
[182]Richard D. Gill. Better Bell Inequalities (Passion at a Distance)[J]. Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, Vol.55, Asymptotics:Particles, Processes and Inverse Problems:Festschrift for Piet Groeneboom (2007), pp.135-148.
[183]Richard Healey. Nonlocality and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.64, No.1 (Mar.,1997), pp.18-41
[184]Rob Clifton. The Subtleties of Entanglement and Its Role in Quantum Information Theory[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.69, No.3, Supplement:Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part Ⅱ:Symposia Papers (Sep.,2002), pp. S150-S167
[185]Robert Weingard. Do Virtual Particles Exist?[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1982, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1982), pp.235-242
[186]Robert N. Brandon and Scott Carson. The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory:No "No Hidden Variables Proof" but No Room for Determinism Either[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.63, No.3 (Sep.,1996), pp. 315-337
[187]Robert Deltete and Reed Guy. Einstein and EPR[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.58, No.3 (Sep.,1991), pp.377-397
[188]Robert K. Clifton. Jeremy N. Butterfield, Michael L. G. Redhead, Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds-A Stapp in the Wrong Direction[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.41, No.1 (Mar.,1990), pp.5-58
[189]Robert Clifton. Constantine Pagonis, Itamar Pitowsky, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR [J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1992, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1992), pp.114-128
[190]Roger Jones. Causal Anomalies and the Completeness of Quantum Theory [J]. Synthese, Vol.35, No.1, Hans Reichenbach, Logical Empiricist, Part IV (May, 1977), pp.41-78.
[191]Ruggero Maria Santilli. Relativistic Hadronic Mechanics:Nonunitary, Axiom-Preserving Completion of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.27, No.5,1997.625-729
[192]S. Rozental ed. Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues [G]. North-Holland Pub.Co.,1967.
[193]Scheibe, E. The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics [M]. Oxford:Pergamon Press,1973
[194]Shimony, A. Search for a Naturalistic World View, Volume 2, Natural Science and Metaphysics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[195]Smith, B. C. On the Origin of Objects [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press,1996
[196]S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, A. C. Doherty. Entanglement, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations, Bell nonlocality, and steering [J]. Physical Review A 76, 052116 (2007).1-052116-17.
[197]Thomas Ryckman. The Reign of Relativity:Philosophy in Physics [J]. Metascience, (2007) 16:397-436
[198]Steven French. Individuality, Supervenience and Bell's Theorem [J]. Philosophical Studies:An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol.55, No. 1(Jan.,1989), pp.1-22
[199]Steven French. Why the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles Is Not Contingently True Either [J]. Synthese, Vol.78, No.2 (Feb.,1989), pp.141-166
[200]Steven French and Decio Krause. Quantum Vagueness[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 59, No.1 (Jul.,2003), pp.97-124
[201]Steven French and Decio Krause. Vague Identity and Quantum Non-Individuality [J]. Analysis, Vol.55, No.1 (Jan.,1995), pp.20-26
[202]Steven French and James Ladyman. Remodelling Structural Realism:Quantum Physics and the Metaphysics of Structure [J]. Synthese, Vol.136, No.1, Structural Realism and Quantum Field Theory (Jul.,2003), pp.31-56
[203]Steven Weinstein. Superluminal Signaling and Relativity[J]. Synthese, Vol.148, No.2 (Jan.,2006), pp.381-399
[204]Storrs McCall. QM and STR:The Combining of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers (Sep.,2000), pp. S535-S548
[205]S. V. Bhave. Separable Hidden Variables Theory to Explain Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen Paradox [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.37, No. 4 (Dec.,1986), pp.467-475
[206]Thagard, P. Conceptual Revolutions [M]. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1992
[207]Teller, P. An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory [M]. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1995,
[208]Ulf H.Danielsson and Marcelo Schiffer. Quantum mechanics,common sense,and the black hole information paradox[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.48, No.10, 15Nov.1993.4779-4785.
[209]Ulrich Mohrhoff. The World According to Quantum Mechanics(Or the 18 Errors of Henry P. Stapp) [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.32, No.2, February 2002.217-251
[210]Van Fraassen, B. C. Quantum Mechanics:an Empiricist View[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991
[211]Vassilios Karakostas. Forms of Quantum Nonseparability and Related Philosophical Consequences [J]. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol.35, No.2 (2004), pp.283-312
[212]Valia Allori & Nino Zangh. What is Bohmian Mechanics [J]. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol.43, Nos.7/8, August 2004.1743-1755.
[213]Wiggins, D. Sameness and Substance Renewed [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001
[214]Willem M. De Muynck and Gidi P. Van Liempd. On the Relation between Indistinguishability of Identical Particles and (Anti) Symmetry of the Wave Function in Quantum Mechanics [J]. Synthese, Vol.67, No.3, Issues in the Philosophy of Science (Jun.,1986), pp.477-496
[215]W. Michael Dickson. Determinism and Locality in Quantum Systems [J]. Synthese, Vol.107, No.1 (Apr.,1996), pp.55-82
[216]W. M. De Muynck. Measurement and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory [J]. Synthese, Vol.102, No.2 (Feb.,1995), pp.293-318
[217]Worrall, J.'Structural Realism:the Best of Both Worlds?' in Dialectica 43, (1989) pp.99-124.
[218]Worrall, J.'How to Remain (Reasonably) Optimistic:Scientific Realism and the "Luminiferous Ether"', in D. Hull, M. Forbes and M. Burian (eds.), PSA1994, Philosophy of Science Association, pp.334-342.
[219]W. P. Bowen, R. Schnabel, and P. K. Lam. Experimental Investigation of Criteria for ContinuousVariable Entanglement [J]. Physical Review letters, Vol.90, No.4,31 January 2003.043601 (1-4)
[220]W.V.Quine. From A logical point of view[M],2nd ed. Cambridge:Harword University Press,1961
[221]W.V.Quine. Identity, ostension, and Hypostasis[J]. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.47, No.22. Oct.26,1950.621-633.
[222]William C.Price Seymour S. Chissick ed. The Uncertainty Principle and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics [M]. John Wiley & Sons,1977.
[223]Y.H.Shih, A.V.Sergienko, and M.H.Rubin. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen state for space-time variables in a two-photon interference experiment [J]. Physical Review A, Vol.47,No.2,February 1993.1288-1293.
[1]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008
[2]阿伯拉罕·派斯.基本粒子物理学史[M].关洪、杨建邺、王自华、付冬梅译.武汉：武汉出版社,2009
[3]阿努尔等著,科学与哲学的对话.Ⅰ[M].卞晓平等译.北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
[4]阿努尔等著.科学与哲学的对话.Ⅱ[M].卞晓平等译.北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
[5]安道玉.迪昂-蒯因论点和科学理论检验的转换[J].自然辩证法研究.第20卷第2期.2004(2)
[6]爱因斯坦文集[M].第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.
[7]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M],王柯平译.北京：人民出版社,2001
[8]白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[9]波普尔.波普尔自传：无尽的探索[M].赵月瑟译.北京：中央编译出版社,2009
[10]A.E查尔默斯.科学究竟是什么[M](第三版).鲁旭东译.北京：商务印书馆,2007.
[11]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校,上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.
[12]曹天元.上帝掷骰子吗：量子物理史话[M].沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,2005.
[13]陈波,韩林合主编.逻辑与语言[M].北京：东方出版社,2005.
[14]成素梅.在宏观与微观之间——量子测量的解释语境与实在论[M].广州：中山大学出版社,2006.
[15]成素梅.理论与实在[M].北京：科学出版社,2008
[16]成素梅.量子非定域性概念的哲学意义和内涵[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版.2004(1)
[17]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[18]戴维.波姆.整体性与隐缠序：卷层宇宙中的意识[M].洪定国.张桂权.查有梁译,上海：上海科技教育出版社,2004.
[19]戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.
[20]W.c.丹皮尔.科学史——及其与哲学和宗教的关系[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2001.
[21][法]彭加勒.科学与方法[M].李醒民译.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[22][法]彭加勒.科学与假设[M].李醒民译.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[23]戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.
[24]关洪.一代神话：哥本哈根学派[M].武汉：武汉出版社,2002.
[25]关洪.量子力学的基本概念[M].高等教育出版社,1990.
[26]关洪、成素梅、卢遂现.微观领域中的因果性与关联性[J].自然辩证法通讯,1996(5)
[27]桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991
[28]桂起权、姜琳.判决性实验的相对确定性与判决性效力.山东科技大学学报.第8卷第1期.2006(3)
[29]桂起权,姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
[30]郭贵春、郝云鹏.量子纠缠及其哲学反思[J].山西大学学报.第27卷第3期,2004(5)
[31]郭奕玲,沈慧君.物理学史[M],北京：清华大学出版社,1993
[32][丹麦]赫尔奇·克拉夫.科学史学导论[M].任定成译.北京.北京大学出版社,2005
[33]黄祖洽.现代物理学前沿选讲[M].北京：科学出版社,2007.
[34]黄政新.爱因斯坦学术思想与EPR问题[M].今日中国出版社,1997.
[35]韩艳.关于“判决性实验”的历史述评[J].湖北大学学报.第28卷.第4期.2001(7)
[36]韩林合.分析的形而上学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2003.
[37]贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.
[38][西德]W·海森堡,物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.科学出版社，1974.
[39][美]鲁道夫·卡尔纳普.卡尔纳普思想自述[M].陈晓山涂敏译.上海.上海译文出版社,1985.
[40][美]鲁道夫·卡尔纳普.科学哲学导论[M].张华夏,李平译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[41]金尚年.量子力学的物理基础和哲学背景[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007.99
[42]兰征.“判决性实验”可能吗?[J].自然辩证法研究.第2卷.第3期.
[43]刘文君,韩艳.关于“判决性实验”的再思考[J].华中师范大学学报.1995(6)
[44]卢旺林.拉卡托斯科学研究纲领方法论[J].江西财经大学学报.2006(5)
[45]刘治.从贝尔不等式到量子信息“热”[J].大学物理.2005年10月.第24卷第10期：40-43.
[46]罗嘉昌.爱因斯坦定域性破坏的哲学意义——兼评过程哲学的解释[J].自然辩证法通讯.1981(3)
[47][比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991
[48]李蕴才主编.高等量子力学[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2000
[49][美]卡尔·G·亨普尔.自然科学的哲学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[50][美]内格尔.科学的结构：科学说明的逻辑问题[M].徐向东译.上海：上海译文出版社,2005
[51][英]培根.新工具[M].陈伟功编译.北京：北京出版社,2008
[52]
[53]孙小礼.从“判决性实验”引起的思考[J].哲学研究,1988(12)
[54]孙小礼主编.现代科学的哲学争论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[55][美]M.H.沙摩斯.物理史上的重要实验[M].北京：科学出版社,1985
[56][英]索论森.悖论简史[M].贾红雨译.北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[57]申先甲,林可济,主编.科学悖论集[M],湖南科学技术出版社,1998.
[58]舒国萱.迪昂-蒯因论点对判决性实验的意见[J].自然辩证法研究.第24卷第12期.2008(12)
[59]舒国萱.宇称不守恒——实验对理论的判决性反驳[J].自然辨证法研究.第31卷.总180期.2009(2)
[60]沈惠川.贝尔定理和贝尔不等式[J].自然杂志.1996.18(14)：240-144.
[61]王福山主编.近代物理学史研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.
[62]王福山主编.近代物理学史研究(二)[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1986.
[63]王自华,桂起权.海森堡传[M].长春：长春出版社,1999.
[64]王贵友,科学技术哲学导论[M].北京：人民出版社,2005
[65]万小龙.范·弗拉森的量子力学哲学研究[M].中山大学出版社,2006.
[66]万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
[67]万小龙.范·弗拉森对EPR关联的分析[J].自然辩证法研究,第20卷第4期,2004(4)
[68]万小龙,姜小慧.全同粒子与真假孙悟空之比较研究[J].淮阴师范学院学报,2010(1)
[69]王维.科学基础论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996
[70]王阳.迪昂-蒯因论点与科学论证模式的转变[J].科学技术与辩证法.第25卷第4期.2008(8)
[71]王阳.论迪昂论点与奎因论点的差别[J].科学技术与辨证法.第26卷第2期.2009(4)
[72]吴国林.量子非定域性及其哲学意义[J].哲学研究.2006(9)
[73]吴国林.量子信息本质探究[J].科学技术与辩正法,第22卷第6期,2005(12)；
[74]吴国林.量子纠缠及其哲学意义[J].自然辩正法研究,2005年7月,第21卷第7期；
[75]吴国林.量子信息哲学正在兴起[J].哲学动态,2006(10)；
[76]杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.
[77]肖巍.为什么没有“判决性实验”[J].复旦学报.1990(5)
[78]薛杰.论科学理论的系统发育机制[J].华中师范大学学报.1991(1)
[79]肖太陶.吴健雄与物理学史上的三个判决性实验[J].自然辨证法研究.第22卷第5期.2006(5)
[80][英]伊恩·斯图尔特.自然之数：数学想象的虚幻实境[M].潘涛译.刘华杰较.上海：上海科学技术出版社,2007.
[81][英]伊姆雷·拉卡托斯.科学研究纲领方法论[M].兰征译.上海：上海译文出版社,2005
[82]张建军.广义逻辑悖论研究及其社会文化功能[R].桂林：中国辩证逻辑2005年学术讨论会大会报告,2005年11月。
[83]张建军.黄展骥.矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998
[84]张建军.黄展骥.矛盾与悖论研究[M].香港：黄河文化出版社,1992
[85]张建军.科学的难题——悖论[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1990
[86]张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.
[87]张大松.《科学探索的奥秘》的内蕴与启迪[J].现代哲学.1990(2)
[88]郑祥福,洪伟.科学的精神[M].上海：上海三联书店,2001
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.329
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.329
3爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.329
4爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
3爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
1 N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.
3 E. Schr6dinger. Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems[J], Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555(1935).
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.448-449
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.449
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.451
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.451
1[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M],庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.68
2 J.S.Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics[G]. Cambridge University Press,2004.14
2桂起权,姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
1 John F. Clauser. Michael A. Home, Abner Shimony and Richard A.Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories [J], Physical Review Letters, Vol.23, No.15,13 OCT.1969.880-884.
1 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M], Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.120
1黄祖洽.现代物理学前沿选讲[M].北京：科学出版社,2007.71.
2王福山主编.近代物理学史研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.115
3[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.19
1[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.163
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.21
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.23
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.17
2王福山 主编.近代物理学史研究(二)[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1986.121.
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.179-180.
1转引自戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.123
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.160
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.160
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.131
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.162
3[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.165
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.195
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.203
2张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.124-125.
3张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.119
4张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.119
1黄祖洽.现代物理学前沿选讲[M].北京：科学出版社,2007.75
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.52
1[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.58
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982..46
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982..57
4[美]阿伯拉罕·派斯.基本粒子物理学史[M].关洪、杨建邺、王自华、付冬梅译.武汉：武汉出版社,2009.272
1 S. Rozental ed, Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues[M]. North-Holland Pub.Co.,1967.95
2 C.Weiner ed. History of Twentienth Century Physics[M]. Academic Press,1977.134
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.292。
4戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.293。
5转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.293。
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.294。
2杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.660
3转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.661
1转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.661
2转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.661
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
1[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
4[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团,上海科技出版社,2008.177
5转引自,[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.169
6[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.170
1转引自,[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.172
2[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.172
1[西德]W·海森伯.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.13
2杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.660
1转引自,物理学思想史[M].杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.666
2 Peter Gibbins. Particles and Paradoxes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.91
3[英]A.F.查尔默斯.科学究竟是什么[M](第三版).鲁旭东译.北京：商务印书馆,2007.30
1[西德] w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社.197411
2[西德]w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.11
3[西德]W海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社，197413
3[西德]w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.11
5[西德]w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.123
1[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.42
1转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.669
2转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.671
3戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.4
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.267
2 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.27
2 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
3 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
4 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
5 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
1[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.116
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.447
3近代物理学史研究[M].王福山主编.上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.211
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.211
2转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.67
3转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.673
1杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.674
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.299
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.300
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.302
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.303-304
3转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.304
1转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.309.
2戴维斯, 布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.10
1[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.117
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.241
1王福山主编.近代物理学史研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.226-227
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.114
2转引自,[美]内格尔.N.科学的结构：科学说明的逻辑问题[M].徐向东译.上海：上海译文出版社,2005.265
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.108
2 G.Zweig. Proc.fourth int. conf. on barvon resonances [M]. Ed. N.Iseur. Univ.Toronto Press,1980.439
3爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.170
4爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.193
1 Born, M. (ed.).The Born-Einstein Letters[M]. London:MacMillan,1971.82.
2N.玻尔.原子物理学和人类知识[M].北京：商务印书馆,1964.66
3[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.105
4[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.113
5爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.302-303
6转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.689
1转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.689
1[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海科学技术文献出版社,2008.59
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.102
3 A.Einstein, B.Podolsky and N.Rosen. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? [J]. Physical Review, Volume 47, May 15,1935.777
4 A.Einstein, B.Podolsky and N.Rosen. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? [J]. Physical Review, Volume 47, May 15,1935.777
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.367
1 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. John Wiley & Sons,1974.121-122.
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.373
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.374
1 Peter Gibbins. Particles and Paradoxes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.63
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.376
1转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.377
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.377
(?) S.Rozental ed, Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues[M]. North-Holland Pub.Co., 1967.107
4爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.231.
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.231
2关洪.量子力学的基本概念[M].高等教育出版社,1990.
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.381
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.380
3转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.382
戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.387
1关洪.一代神话：哥本哈根学派[M].武汉：武汉出版社,2002.135
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.2
3转引自,霍华德(1989),Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem[M]. Notre Dame, Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.224
1贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.101
2 N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
1 N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
1白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.18
2白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.71
1 S.Rozental ed. Niels Bohr, His life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues [M]. North-Holland Pub.Co.,1967.95
1戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.9
1[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译..北京：商务印书馆,1982.34
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译..北京：商务印书馆,1982.34
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译..北京：商务印书馆,1982.35
1 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.134
2 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.134
3 John F. Clauser, Michael A. Home, Abner Shimony and Richard A. Holt. Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.23, No.15,13 OCT.1969.880-884.
1桂起权,姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
2 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.120
3由于CHSH不等式取消了隐变量理论这个预设,所以CHSH不等式以后,定域性预设成为主要考察对象。
4 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.107
1 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.163
2 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.120
1申先甲,林可济,主编.科学悖论集[M],湖南科学技术出版社,1998.160-161
2申先甲,林可济,主编.科学悖论集[M],湖南科学技术出版社,1998.161
1戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.37
1戴维斯，布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.37
2戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.38
1戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.38
1白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.38
2转引自,阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.38
1[美]戴维.波姆.整体性与隐缠序：卷层宇宙中的意识[M].洪定国,张桂权,查有梁译.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2004.199
1罗嘉昌.爱因斯坦定域性破坏的哲学意义——兼评过程哲学的解释[J].自然辩证法通讯,1981(3).
2成素梅.量子非定域性概念的哲学意义和内涵[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2004(1).
3吴国林.量子非定域性及其哲学意义[J].哲学研究,2006(9).
1 M.D.Reid, P.D.Drummond, W.P.Bowen, E.G.Cavalcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A.Bachor, U.L.Andersen and G. Leuchs,
1本节内容已整理发表。参见,桂起权姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
2孙小礼.从“判决性实验”引起的思考[J].哲学研究,1988(12)
1孙小礼.从“判决性实验”引起的思考[J].哲学研究,1988(12)
2转引自,兰征.“判决性实验”可能吗?[J].自然辩证法研究,第2卷,第3期.
1 Otto Neurath.Unified Science and Its Encyclopaedia [J].Philosophy of Science, Vol.4, No.2 (Apr.,1937), pp.265-277
2 Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery [M],2nded. New York:Basic Books.1968:111.
3桂起权,姜琳.判决性实验的相对确定性与判决效力[J].山东科技大学学报,2006(1)。
1舒国萱.宇称不守恒与判决性实验,中山大学博士论文[D].2009年6月1日答辩。
1本章主要内容已经整理发表。参见：桂起权姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
2[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社,2001.725
3转引自,[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社,2001.725
1张建军,黄展骥.矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.106
2张建军,黄展骥.矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.106
1张建军,黄展骥：矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.106
2张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.17
3张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.18
4张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.20
5张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.22
1桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.175-176
2转引自,桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.176
3桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.176
1桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.176-178
2张建军.广义逻辑悖论研究及其社会文化功能[R].桂林：中国辩证逻辑2005年学术讨论会大会报告,2005年11月。
1贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.96
2贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.97
3王贵友.科学技术哲学导论[M].北京：人民出版社,2005.188
1贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.98
1张建军.科学的难题——悖论[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1990.293-295
2张建军.科学的难题——悖论[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1990.298
1 W.V.Quine. Identity,ostension,and Hypostasis[J]. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.47, No.22. Oct.26,1950.621-633.
1 Peter Pesic. Seeing Double:Shared Identities in Physics, Philosophy, and Literature[M].The MIT Press,2002.25
2[英]索论森,贾红雨译.悖论简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.3,R216
3这里我们将把“不可识别(indiscernible)"与“不可区分(indistinguishable)"这个两个词加以区别,我们认为前者是认识论意义上的,而后者是本体论意义上的,作出这种区别对于微观粒子个体性问题的探讨是非常关键的；微观粒子的全同性究竟是意味着认识论意义上的不可识别还是本体论上的不可区分,还有待于进一步的探讨,而我们更倾向于前者。
4[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社.2001.466.笔者对译文做了调整。
1[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社.2001.466.笔者对译文做了调整
2万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
1万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
2万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
3 Don Howord. Einstein on locality and separability [J].Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,1985(16):171-201
4 Don Howord. Holism,Separability, and The Metaphysical Implications of The Bell Expriments, In Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem [M], ed. James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.224-253.
5 Don Howord. Holism,Separability, and The Metaphysical Implications of The Bell Expriments, In Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory---Reflections on Bell's Theorem [M], ed James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.249.
[2]Achinstein, P. Particles and Waves:Historical Essays in the Philosophy of Science[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991
[3]A. T. Nicol. Indivisible Lines[J]. The Classical Quarterly, Vol.30, No.2 (Apr., 1936), pp.120-126
[4]A. H. Klotz. On the Nature of Quantum Mechanics[J]. Synthese, Vol.77, No.2 (Nov.,1988), pp.139-193
[5]Anthony O'Hear. Science and Religion[J], The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.44, No.3 (Sep.,1993), pp.505-516
[6]Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and Gerard Roger. Experimental Tests if Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.47,No.7,17 August 1981.460-463.
[7]Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and Gerard Roger. Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment:A New Vialation of Bell's Inequalities [J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.49, No.2,12 July 1982.91-94
[8]Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gerard Roger. Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers [J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.49, No.25,20 Dce.1982.1804-1807.
[9]A.Einstein, B.Podolsky, N.Rosen. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? [J].Physical Review, Volume 47, May 15,1935.777-780
[10]Alberto Cordero. Realism and Underdetermination:Some Clues from the Practices-Up [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.68, No.3, Supplement:Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers (Sep.,2001), pp. S301-S312
[11]ARTHUR JABS. An Interpretation of the Formalism of Quantum Mechanics in Terms of Epistemological Realism [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.43, No.3 (Sep.,1992), pp.405-421
[12]Arthur Fine. Correlations and Physical Locality [J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1980, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1980), pp.535-562
[13]A. Shimony. Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics.II[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.9, No.8,15 April 1974.2321-2323.
[14]Ayman F. Abouraddy, Timothy Yarnall, Bahaa E. A. Saleh and Malvin C. Teich, Violation of Bell's inequality with continuous spatial variables[J]. Physical Review A 75,052114 (2007)1-13.
[15]Ashok Kumar Gangadean. Formal Ontology and the Dialectical Transformation of Consciousness[J], Philosophy East and West, Vol.29, No.1 (Jan.,1979), pp. 21-48
[16]Adonai S. Sant'Anna. Elementary Particles, Hidden Variables, and Hidden Predicates [J]. Synthese, Vol.125, No.1/2
[17]Arthur Fine. On the Completeness of Quantum Theory [J]. Synthese.Vol.29, No. 1/4, Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics (Dec.,1974), pp.257-289
[18]Buchwald, J. Z. The Rise of the Wave Theory of Light [M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.1989
[19]Bohr, N. Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge [M]. New York:Wley,1963.
[20]Bohm, David, and Basil J. Hiley. The Undivided Universe:An Ontological Inter-pretation of Quantum Theory [M]. London:Routledge,1993.
[21]B. J. Hiley, David Joseph Bohm.20 December 1917-27 October 1992[J]. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol.43 (Nov.,1997), pp. 107-131
[22]Barry Loewer. Review:Copenhagen versus Bohmian Interpretations of Quantum Theory [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.49, No.2 (Jun., 1998), pp.317-328
[23]Bas C. Van Fraassen. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox [J]. Synthese, Vol. 29, No.1/4, Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics (Dec.,1974), pp. 291-309
[24]Brent Mundy. Special Relativity and Quantum Measurement [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.37, No.2 (Jun.,1986), pp.207-212
[25]Brian Skyrms. Counterfactual Definiteness and Local Causation [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.49, No.1 (Mar.,1982), pp.43-50
[26]C.Weiner ed. History of Twentienth Century Physics [M]. Academic Press,1977
[27]Cushing, J. and E. McMullin. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Re- flections on Bell's Theorem [M]. Notre Dame:University of Notre Dame Press,1989
[28]C. A. Hooker. Against Krip's Resolution Of Two Paradoxes in Quatum Mechaniscs[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.38, No.3 (Sep.,1971), pp.418-428.
[29]C. A. Hooker. On Global Theories [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.42, No.2 (Jun.,1975), pp.152-179
[30]C. A. Hooker. Projection, Physical Intelligibility, Objectivity and Completeness: The Divergent Ideals of Bohr and Einstein[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.42, No.4 (Dec.,1991), pp.491-511
[31]C. A. Hooker. Sharp and the Refutation of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.38, No.2 (Jun.,1971), pp.224-233
[32]Carl R. Hausman. Metaphors, Referents, and Individuality [J]. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.42, No.2 (Winter,1983), pp.181-195
[33]Chas. A. Mercier. Individuality [J]. Mind, New Series, Vol.27, No.105 (Jan.,1918), pp.22-39
[34]Chuang Liu. Potential, Propensity, and Categorical Realism[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.45, No.1 (Jul.,1996), pp.45-68
[35]Chris Eliasmith and Paul Thagard. Waves, Particles, and Explanatory Coherence[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.48, No.1 (Mar.,1997), pp. 1-19
[36]Christopher Read Hitchcock. Causal Explanation and Scientific Realism[J] Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.37, No.2 (Sep.,1992), pp.151-178.
[37]Dickson, W. Michael. Quantum Chance and Nonlocality [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1998
[38]Daniel M. Hausman. Lessons from Quantum Mechanics [J]. Synthese, Vol.121, No.1/2, Statistics and Causation (1999), pp.79-92
[39]Daniel Schoch. On the Formal Connection of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument to Quantum Mechanics and Reality [J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.29, No. 2 (Sep.,1988), pp.269-278
[40]Darrin W. Belousek. Underdetermination, Realism, and Theory Appraisal:An Epistemological Reflection on Quantum Mechanics [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.35, No.4, April 2005.669-694.
[41]David Albert and Barry Loewer. Wanted Dead or Alive:Two Attempts to Solve Schrodinger's Paradox[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1990, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1990), pp.277-285
[42]David A. Edwards. The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics [J] Synthese, Vol.42, No.1, Issues in the Philosophy of Physics (Sep.,1979), pp.1-70
[43]Decio Krause and Steven French. Formal Framework For Quantum Non-individuality* Abstract [J]. Synthese, Vol.102, No.1 (Jan.,1995), pp. 195-214
[44]Decio Krause. Remarks on Quantum Ontology[J]. Synthese, Vol.125, No.1/2, Festschrift in Honor of Newton C. A. Da Costa on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Oct.-Nov.,2000), pp.155-167
[45]Dennis Dieks. Quantum Statistics, Identical Particles and Correlations[J]. Synthese, Vol.82, No.1 (Jan.,1990), pp.127-155
[46]Don Howord. Locality, separability, and the physical implications of the bell experiments. Boston Unversity preprint.1987.
[47]Don Howord. Einstein on locality and separability [J]. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,1985(16):171-201
[48]Don Howord. Holism, Separability, and The Metaphysical Implications of The Bell Expriments, In Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem, ed.James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.224-253.
[49]Earman. John, A Primer on Determinism [M]. Boston:D. Reidel,1986.
[50]Edward MacKinnon. Schwinger and the Ontology of Quantum Field Theory [J]. Found Sci. (2007) 12:295-323.
[51]E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones. H. M. Wiseman, M. D. Reid, Experimental criteria for steering and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox[J]. Physical Review A 80, 032112 (2009).1-15.
[52]E. Jordan. Possession and Individuality [J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.31, No. 4 (Jul.,1922), pp.369-387
[53]E. J. Lowe. Identity, Individuality, and Unity [J]. Philosophy, Vol.78, No.305 (Jul., 2003), pp.321-336
[54]E. Jordan. The Definition of Individuality[J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.30, No.6 (Nov.,1921), pp.566-584
[55]Emilio Santos. The Failure to Perform a Loophole-Free Test of Bell's'Inequality Supports Local Realism [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.34, No.11, November 2004.1643-1672
[56]F.Belinfante. A Survey of Hidden Variables Theories [M]. Oxford:Pergamon Press, 1973
[57]Federico Laudisa. A Note on Nonlocality, Causation, and Lorentz Invariance[J].Philosophy of Science, Vol.66, pp. S72-S81
[58]Federico Laudisa. Einstein, Bell, and Nonseparable Realism[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.46, No.3 (Sep.,1995), pp.309-329
[59]F. Winterberg. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics as a Consequence of the Planck Mass Plasma Conjecture [J]. Int J Theor Phys (2007) 46:3294-3311
[60]Frank Arntzenius. Physics and Common Causes [J]. Synthese, Vol.82, No.1 (Jan., 1990), pp.77-96
[61]Frank Arntzenius. Relativistic Hidden Variable Theories? [J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.41, No.2 (Sep.,1994), pp.207-231
[62]Frederick M. Kronz. EPR:The Correlations Are Still a Mystery [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.55, No.4 (Dec.,1988), pp.631-639
[63]Frederick M. Kronz. Hidden Locality, Conspiracy and Superluminal Signals [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.57, No.3 (Sep.,1990), pp.420-444
[64]Frederick M. Kronz. Jarrett Completeness and Superluminal Signals[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1990, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1990), pp.227-239
[65]Frederick M. Kronz. Nonseparability and Quantum Chaos [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.65, No.1 (Mar.,1998), pp.50-75
[66]Frederic Sontag.Individuality and Philosophic Advance[J]. American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.15, No.3 (Jul.,1978), pp.235-238
[67]G. Di Giuseppe, F. de Martini, D. Boschi. Test of the Violation of Local Realism in Quantum Mechanics with No Use of Bell's Inequalities [J].Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 45, No.2/3, Probability, Dynamics and Causality (Nov.,1996), pp.367-377
[68]Gabor Hofer-Szabo, Miklos Redei, Laszlo E. Szabo. Common-Causes Are Not Common Common-Causes [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.69, No.4 (Dec.,2002), pp.623-636
[69]Gregg Jaeger, A.Shimony, and Lev Vaidman. Two interferometric Complementarities [J], Physical ReviewA,Vol.51, No.1, January1995.54-67.
[70]Gregg Jaeger, Michael A.Horne and Abner Shimony. Complementarity of one-particle and two-particle interference [J]. Physical Review A,Vol.48, No.2 January1993.1023-1027.
[71]Gen-Ichiro Nagasaka. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Reexamined Author[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1970 (1970), pp.437-445
[72]Geoffrey Hellman. EPR, Bell, and Collapse:A Route around "Stochastic" Hidden Variables [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.54, No.4 (Dec.,1987), pp.558-576
[73]Geoffrey Hellman. Stochastic Einstein-Locality and the Bell Theorems [J]. Synthese, Vol.53, No.3 (Dec.,1982), pp.461-504
[74]Geoffrey Hellman. Stochastic Locality and the Bell Theorems [J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1982, Volume Two:Symposia and Invited Papers (1982), pp.601-615
[75]Gerhard Schurz and Karel Lambert. Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding[J]. Synthese, Vol.101, No.1 (Oct.,1994), pp.65-120
[76]J. Gracia. The Ontological Status of Individuality[J]. Manuscrito,1986(9):51-74.
[77]Hans Burkhardt & Barry Smith (eds.).Handbook of Metaphysics and ontology[J]. Philosophia Verlag.1991.238-239.
[78]H. Brown and R. Harry, eds. Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1988
[79]Haag, Rudolf. Local Quantum Physics[M]. New York:Springer,1992.
[80]Healey, R. A.. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics:an Interactive Interpretation [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1989
[81]Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy[M]. New York:Harper& Row,1958
[82]Heisenberg, W. Physics and Beyond[M]. New York:Harper& Row,1971
[83]Hesse, M. B. The Structure of Scientific Inference[M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1974.
[84]Holland, Peter R. The Quantum Theory of Motion:An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1993
[85]Hans Burkhardt& Barry Smith (eds.).Handbook of Metaphysics and ontology [J], Philosophia Verlag.1991.238-239.
[86]Hans Halvorson and Rob Clifton. No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories?[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.69, No.1 (Mar.,2002), pp.1-28
[87]Hasok Chang and Nancy Cartwright. Causality and Realism in the EPR Experiment[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.38, No.2, Special Issue on Philosophy of Science (Mar.,1993), pp.169-190.
[88]Heinz Post. The Problem of Atomism[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.26, No.1 (Mar.,1975), pp.19-26
[89]Henry Krips. Realism and the Collapse of the Wave-Packet[J].The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.39, No.2 (Jun.,1988), pp.225-232
[90]Henry P. Stapp. Quantum Interactive Dualism, II:The Libet and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Causal Anomalies[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.65, No. 1, Prospects for Dualism:Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2006), pp.117-142
[91]Howord Stein. Is There A Problem of interpreting quantum mechnics?[J]. Nous,1970,4:93-103
[92]Hector-Neri Castaneda. Individuation and Non-Identity:A New Look [J] American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.12, No.2 (Apr.,1975), pp.131-140
[93]Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-idind/
[94]Ingemar Nordin. Determinism and Locality in Quantum Mechanics[J]. Synthese, Vol.42, No.1, Issues in the Philosophy of Physics (Sep.,1979), pp.71-90
[95]James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin ed. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem [G]. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.
[96]J.S.Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics[G]. Cambridge University Press,2004
[97]J. Butterfield and C. Pagonis, eds. From Physics to Philosophy[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press,1999
[98]J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek,eds, Quantum Theory and Measurement [M]. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1983.
[99]J. Subramanyam. Measurement and the Justification of the Statistical Postulate in Bohm's Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics[J]. Synthese, Vol.113, No.3 (1997/1998), pp.423-444
[100]J. A. Leighton. The Study of Individuality [J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.11, No.6 (Nov.,1902), pp.565-575
[101]James Robert Brown. Realism, Miracles, and the Common Cause[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1982, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1982), pp.98-106
[102]James Robert Brown. The Miracle of Science [J].The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No.128, Special Issue:Scientific Realism (Jul.,1982), pp.232-244
[103]James T. Cushing. Causality as an Overarching Principle in Physics[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1986, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1986), pp.3-11.
[104]James T. Cushing. Locality/Separability:Is This Necessarily a Useful Distinction?[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1994, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1994), pp. 107-116
[105]Jeffrey Bub.The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.40, No.2 (Jun.,1989), pp.191-211
[106]Jeremy Butterfield and Gordon N. Fleming. Quantum Theory and the Mind[J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol.69 (1995), pp.113-173
[107]Jeremy Butterfield. Causal Independence in EPR Arguments[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1990, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1990), pp.213-225.
[108]Jeremy Butterfield. David Lewis Meets John Bell[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 59, No.1 (Mar.,1992), pp.26-43
[109]John F. Clauser, Michael A. Home, Abner Shimony and Richard A.Holt. Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.23, No.15,13 OCT.1969.880-884.
[110]Jon Jarrett. Bell's theorem, Quantum Mechanics, and Locality Realism. Dissertation,University of Chicago.1983
[111]Jon Jarrett. On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments [J]. Nous18:569-589,1984.
[112]Jon Jarrett. Does Bell's theorem apply to theories that admit time-dependent states? In New techniques and Ideas in quantum measurement theory, ed Greenberger, Daniel M.. Annals of the Newyork Academy of Science, vol.480:428-437.1986.
[113]Joel L.Lebowitz. and A. Shimony, Statistical Mechanics of Open Systems[J].Physical Review,Vol.128,No.4,Nov.15,1962.1945-1958.
[114]John C. Howell, Ryan S. Bennink, Sean J. Bentley, and R.W. Boyd. Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox Using Momentumand Position-Entangled Photons from Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.92,No.21,28 May 2004.210403(1-3)
[115]Jeffrey A. Barret. Are Our Best Physical Theories (Probably and/or Approximately) True?[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.70, No.5, Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I:Contributed Papers (Dec., 2003), pp.1206-1218
[116]Jeremy Butterfield. Bell's Theorem:What It Takes[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.43, No.1 (Mar.,1992), pp.41-83
[117]John White. Conceptions of Individuality[J]. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.28, No.3 (Oct.,1980), pp.173-186s
[118]J.S.Bell.On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen[J]. Physics 1(1964)195-200.
[119]John G. Cramer. Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.22,-No.2 15 July 1980.362-376.
[120]Katherine Bedard. Bohm, Spin, and the Bell Inequalities[J]. Synthese, Vol.114, No. 3 (Mar.,1998), pp.405-444
[121]Katherine Bedard. Material Objects in Bohm's Interpretation[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.66, No.2 (Jun.,1999), pp.221-242
[122]Katherine Hawley. Indeterminism and Indeterminacy[J]. Analysis, Vol.58, No.2 (Apr.,1998), pp.101-106
[123]Katherine Bedard. Reply to "Quantum Tunneling Times:A Crucial Test For The Causal Program?"[J]. Foundations of Physics Letters, VoL 10, No.2,1997.183-187
[124]Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery [M],2nded. New York:Basic Books.1968.
[125]Knorr, K. C. The Manufacture of Knowledge[M]. New York:Pergamon Press,: 1981
[126]Lowe, E. J. The Possibility of Metaphysics[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1998
[127]Lewis, D. On the Plurality of Worlds[M]. Oxford:Blackwell.1986
[128]Leibuniz. Philosophical Essays[M]. Indianapolis:Hacke.1991.
[129]Loux, M. Substance and Attribute [M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel,1978
[130]Laudan, L. Science and Hypothesis [M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel,1981
[131]Lev Vaidman. On the Paradoxical Aspects of New Quantum Experiments[J]. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1994, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1994), pp.211-217
[132]Linda Wessels. Locality, Factorability and The Bell Inequalities [J]. Nous, Vol.19, No.4 (Dec.,1985), pp.481-519
[133]Linda Wessels. The 'EPR' Argument:A Post-Mortem[J]. Philosophical Studies:An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol.40, No.1 (Jul., 1981), pp.3-30
[134]M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley &Sons,1974.
[135]Maudlin. Tim, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity[M]. Cambridge:Blackwell. 1994
[136]Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality[M]. New York:McGraw Hill,1950
[137]Mehra, J. and H. Rechenberg. The Historical Development of Quantum Theory[M]. New York:Springer-Verlag,1982
[138]Michael Redhead. From Physics to Metaphysics[M]. Cambridge:Cam-bridge University Press.1995
[139]Mertz, D. Moderate Realism and its Logic [M]. Yale:Yale University Press,:1996
[140]Moore, G. E., Philosophical Studies[M]. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922
[141]Marcello Guarini. Bohm's Metaphors, Causality, and the Quantum Potential [J] Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.59, No.1 (Jul.,2003), pp.77-95.
[142]M.D.Reid, P.D.Drummond, W.P.Bowen, E.GCavalcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A.Bachor, U.L.Andersen and G Leuchs. Colloquium:The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: From concepts to applications [J]. Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol.81, No.4, October-December 2009,1728-1748
[143]Malcolm R. Forster. Counterfactual Reasoning in the Bell-Epr Paradox[M]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.53, No.1 (Mar.,1986), pp.133-144.
[144]Matteo Morganti. On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism[M]. Synthese, Vol.142, No.1 (Oct.,2004), pp.81-107.
[145]M. Freyberger, P. K. Aravind, M. A. Home and A. Shimony. Proposed test of Bell's inequality without a detection loophole by using entangled Rydberg atoms[J]. Physical Review A,Vol.53,No.3 MAR.1996.1232-1244.
[146]Mary H.Fehrs, and A. Shimony. Approximate measurement in quantum mechanics.Ⅰ[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.9, No.8,15 April 1974.2317-2320.
[147]Marion Crane Carroll. The Principle of Individuality in the Metaphysics of Bernard Bosanquet[J]. The Philosophical Review, Vol.30, No.1 (Jan.,1921), pp.1-23.
[148]Mauro Dorato. On Becoming, Relativity, and Nonseparability [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.63, No.4 (Dec.,1996), pp.585-604.
[149]Michael Huemer and Ben Kovitz. Causation as Simultaneous and Continuous [J]. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.53, No.213 (Oct.,2003), pp.556-565.
[150]Michel Paty. The Quantum and Classical Domains as Provisional Parallel Coexistents [J]. Synthese, Vol.125, No.1/2, Festschrift in Honor of Newton C. A. Da Costa on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Oct.-Nov.,2000), pp. 179-200.
[151]Michael Redhead and Harvey Brown. Nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics[J]. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol.65 (1991), pp. 119-159.
[152]Michael.Walicki. Reference, Paradoxes and Truth[J].Synthese,(2009) 171:195-226.
[153]Neumann, von J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics[M]. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1955
[154]Nuel Belnap. No-Common-Cause Epr-Like Funny Business in Branching Space-Times [J]. Philosophical Studies:An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol.114, No.3 (Jun.,2003), pp.199-221
[155]N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
[156]N. David Mermin. The (Non)World (Non)View of Quantum Mechanics[J]. New Literary History, Vol.23, No.4, Papers from the Commonwealth Center for Literary and Cultural Change (Autumn,1992), pp.855-875
[157]Nicholas Maxwell. Quantum Propensiton Theory:A Testable Resolution of the Wave/Particle Dilemma[J], The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 39,No.1 (Mar.,1988), pp.1-50
[158]Nick Huggett, What Are Quanta, and Why Does It Matter?[J], PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1994, Volume Two:Symposia and Invited Papers (1994), pp.69-76
[159]Norwood Russell Hanson, Waves, Particles, and Newton's 'Fits'[J], Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol.21, No.3 (Jul.-Sep.,1960), pp.370-391
[160]Olival Freire Jr.. The Historical Roots of "Foundations of Quantum Physics" as a Field of Research(1950-1970)[J], Foundations of Physics, Vol.34,No.11, November 2004.1741-1760.
[161]O. Costa de Beauregard. Relativistic Quantum Mechanics as a Telegraph [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.31, No.5,2001.837-848
[162]Otto Neurath.Unified Science and Its Encyclopaedia [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No.2 (Apr.,1937), pp.265-277
[163]P. B. Treacy. Role of locality in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations and teleportation[J]. Physical Review A 67,014101 (2003).1-4.
[164]Parthaghose. Violation of signal locality and unitarity in a merger of quantum mechanics and general relativity[J]. PRAMANA-journal of physics, Vol.49, No. 1, July 1997.65-69
[165]Paul K. Feyerabend. On a Recent Critique of Complementarity:Part Ⅱ[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.36, No.1 (Mar.,1969), pp.82-105
[166]Patrick Suppes. Some Remarks on Hidden Variables and the EPR Paradox[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol.16, No.3, Measurement, Probability and Quantum Mechanics, Part 2 (Nov.,1981), pp.311-314
[167]Paul Teller. The Projection Postulate:A New Perspective [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.51, No.3 (Sep.,1984), pp.369-395
[168]Peter Milne. Physical Probabilities [J]. Synthese, Vol.73, No.2 (Nov.,1987), pp. 329-359
[169]Peter Simons. On Being the Same Ship(s)-or Electron(s):Reply to Hughes[J]. Mind, New Series, Vol.106, No.424 (Oct.,1997), pp.761-767
[170]Philip G. Burke and Ian C. Percival. John Stewart Bell.28 July 1928-1 October 1990[J]. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol.45 (Nov., 1999), pp.3-17.
[171]Peter Pesic. Seeing Double:Shared Identities in Physics, Philosophy, and Literature[M]. The MIT Press,2002.
[172]Peter Gibbins. Particles and Paradoxes[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
[173]Penrose,Roger,and Christopher J.Isham, ed. Quantum Concepts in Space and Tim[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1986
[174]Peshkin, M. and A. Tonomura. The Aharonov-Bohm Effect[M]. New York: Springer Verlag,1989.
[175]Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery[M]. London:Hutchinson,1980.
[176]Popper, K. R. A World of Propensities[M]. Bristol:Thoemmes,1990
[177]Psillos, S. Scientific Realism:How Science Tracks Truth [M]. London: Routledge,1999
[178]R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin:Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.
[179]Redhead. M. From Physics to Metaphysics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995
[180]Redhead. M. L. G., Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.1987
[181]Richard J.Blackwell. A Bibliography of the philosophy of Science,1945-1981 [M]. USA:Greenwood Press.1983
[182]Richard D. Gill. Better Bell Inequalities (Passion at a Distance)[J]. Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, Vol.55, Asymptotics:Particles, Processes and Inverse Problems:Festschrift for Piet Groeneboom (2007), pp.135-148.
[183]Richard Healey. Nonlocality and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.64, No.1 (Mar.,1997), pp.18-41
[184]Rob Clifton. The Subtleties of Entanglement and Its Role in Quantum Information Theory[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.69, No.3, Supplement:Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part Ⅱ:Symposia Papers (Sep.,2002), pp. S150-S167
[185]Robert Weingard. Do Virtual Particles Exist?[J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1982, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1982), pp.235-242
[186]Robert N. Brandon and Scott Carson. The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory:No "No Hidden Variables Proof" but No Room for Determinism Either[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.63, No.3 (Sep.,1996), pp. 315-337
[187]Robert Deltete and Reed Guy. Einstein and EPR[J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.58, No.3 (Sep.,1991), pp.377-397
[188]Robert K. Clifton. Jeremy N. Butterfield, Michael L. G. Redhead, Nonlocal Influences and Possible Worlds-A Stapp in the Wrong Direction[J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.41, No.1 (Mar.,1990), pp.5-58
[189]Robert Clifton. Constantine Pagonis, Itamar Pitowsky, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and EPR [J]. PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.1992, Volume One:Contributed Papers (1992), pp.114-128
[190]Roger Jones. Causal Anomalies and the Completeness of Quantum Theory [J]. Synthese, Vol.35, No.1, Hans Reichenbach, Logical Empiricist, Part IV (May, 1977), pp.41-78.
[191]Ruggero Maria Santilli. Relativistic Hadronic Mechanics:Nonunitary, Axiom-Preserving Completion of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.27, No.5,1997.625-729
[192]S. Rozental ed. Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues [G]. North-Holland Pub.Co.,1967.
[193]Scheibe, E. The Logical Analysis of Quantum Mechanics [M]. Oxford:Pergamon Press,1973
[194]Shimony, A. Search for a Naturalistic World View, Volume 2, Natural Science and Metaphysics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[195]Smith, B. C. On the Origin of Objects [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press,1996
[196]S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, A. C. Doherty. Entanglement, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations, Bell nonlocality, and steering [J]. Physical Review A 76, 052116 (2007).1-052116-17.
[197]Thomas Ryckman. The Reign of Relativity:Philosophy in Physics [J]. Metascience, (2007) 16:397-436
[198]Steven French. Individuality, Supervenience and Bell's Theorem [J]. Philosophical Studies:An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol.55, No. 1(Jan.,1989), pp.1-22
[199]Steven French. Why the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles Is Not Contingently True Either [J]. Synthese, Vol.78, No.2 (Feb.,1989), pp.141-166
[200]Steven French and Decio Krause. Quantum Vagueness[J]. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 59, No.1 (Jul.,2003), pp.97-124
[201]Steven French and Decio Krause. Vague Identity and Quantum Non-Individuality [J]. Analysis, Vol.55, No.1 (Jan.,1995), pp.20-26
[202]Steven French and James Ladyman. Remodelling Structural Realism:Quantum Physics and the Metaphysics of Structure [J]. Synthese, Vol.136, No.1, Structural Realism and Quantum Field Theory (Jul.,2003), pp.31-56
[203]Steven Weinstein. Superluminal Signaling and Relativity[J]. Synthese, Vol.148, No.2 (Jan.,2006), pp.381-399
[204]Storrs McCall. QM and STR:The Combining of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory [J]. Philosophy of Science, Vol.67, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers (Sep.,2000), pp. S535-S548
[205]S. V. Bhave. Separable Hidden Variables Theory to Explain Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen Paradox [J]. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.37, No. 4 (Dec.,1986), pp.467-475
[206]Thagard, P. Conceptual Revolutions [M]. Princeton:Princeton University Press,1992
[207]Teller, P. An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory [M]. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1995,
[208]Ulf H.Danielsson and Marcelo Schiffer. Quantum mechanics,common sense,and the black hole information paradox[J]. Physical Review D,Vol.48, No.10, 15Nov.1993.4779-4785.
[209]Ulrich Mohrhoff. The World According to Quantum Mechanics(Or the 18 Errors of Henry P. Stapp) [J]. Foundations of Physics, Vol.32, No.2, February 2002.217-251
[210]Van Fraassen, B. C. Quantum Mechanics:an Empiricist View[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991
[211]Vassilios Karakostas. Forms of Quantum Nonseparability and Related Philosophical Consequences [J]. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol.35, No.2 (2004), pp.283-312
[212]Valia Allori & Nino Zangh. What is Bohmian Mechanics [J]. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol.43, Nos.7/8, August 2004.1743-1755.
[213]Wiggins, D. Sameness and Substance Renewed [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001
[214]Willem M. De Muynck and Gidi P. Van Liempd. On the Relation between Indistinguishability of Identical Particles and (Anti) Symmetry of the Wave Function in Quantum Mechanics [J]. Synthese, Vol.67, No.3, Issues in the Philosophy of Science (Jun.,1986), pp.477-496
[215]W. Michael Dickson. Determinism and Locality in Quantum Systems [J]. Synthese, Vol.107, No.1 (Apr.,1996), pp.55-82
[216]W. M. De Muynck. Measurement and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory [J]. Synthese, Vol.102, No.2 (Feb.,1995), pp.293-318
[217]Worrall, J.'Structural Realism:the Best of Both Worlds?' in Dialectica 43, (1989) pp.99-124.
[218]Worrall, J.'How to Remain (Reasonably) Optimistic:Scientific Realism and the "Luminiferous Ether"', in D. Hull, M. Forbes and M. Burian (eds.), PSA1994, Philosophy of Science Association, pp.334-342.
[219]W. P. Bowen, R. Schnabel, and P. K. Lam. Experimental Investigation of Criteria for ContinuousVariable Entanglement [J]. Physical Review letters, Vol.90, No.4,31 January 2003.043601 (1-4)
[220]W.V.Quine. From A logical point of view[M],2nd ed. Cambridge:Harword University Press,1961
[221]W.V.Quine. Identity, ostension, and Hypostasis[J]. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.47, No.22. Oct.26,1950.621-633.
[222]William C.Price Seymour S. Chissick ed. The Uncertainty Principle and Foundations of Quantum Mechanics [M]. John Wiley & Sons,1977.
[223]Y.H.Shih, A.V.Sergienko, and M.H.Rubin. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen state for space-time variables in a two-photon interference experiment [J]. Physical Review A, Vol.47,No.2,February 1993.1288-1293.
[1]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008
[2]阿伯拉罕·派斯.基本粒子物理学史[M].关洪、杨建邺、王自华、付冬梅译.武汉：武汉出版社,2009
[3]阿努尔等著,科学与哲学的对话.Ⅰ[M].卞晓平等译.北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
[4]阿努尔等著.科学与哲学的对话.Ⅱ[M].卞晓平等译.北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
[5]安道玉.迪昂-蒯因论点和科学理论检验的转换[J].自然辩证法研究.第20卷第2期.2004(2)
[6]爱因斯坦文集[M].第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.
[7]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M],王柯平译.北京：人民出版社,2001
[8]白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
[9]波普尔.波普尔自传：无尽的探索[M].赵月瑟译.北京：中央编译出版社,2009
[10]A.E查尔默斯.科学究竟是什么[M](第三版).鲁旭东译.北京：商务印书馆,2007.
[11]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校,上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.
[12]曹天元.上帝掷骰子吗：量子物理史话[M].沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,2005.
[13]陈波,韩林合主编.逻辑与语言[M].北京：东方出版社,2005.
[14]成素梅.在宏观与微观之间——量子测量的解释语境与实在论[M].广州：中山大学出版社,2006.
[15]成素梅.理论与实在[M].北京：科学出版社,2008
[16]成素梅.量子非定域性概念的哲学意义和内涵[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版.2004(1)
[17]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[18]戴维.波姆.整体性与隐缠序：卷层宇宙中的意识[M].洪定国.张桂权.查有梁译,上海：上海科技教育出版社,2004.
[19]戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.
[20]W.c.丹皮尔.科学史——及其与哲学和宗教的关系[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2001.
[21][法]彭加勒.科学与方法[M].李醒民译.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[22][法]彭加勒.科学与假设[M].李醒民译.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[23]戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.
[24]关洪.一代神话：哥本哈根学派[M].武汉：武汉出版社,2002.
[25]关洪.量子力学的基本概念[M].高等教育出版社,1990.
[26]关洪、成素梅、卢遂现.微观领域中的因果性与关联性[J].自然辩证法通讯,1996(5)
[27]桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991
[28]桂起权、姜琳.判决性实验的相对确定性与判决性效力.山东科技大学学报.第8卷第1期.2006(3)
[29]桂起权,姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
[30]郭贵春、郝云鹏.量子纠缠及其哲学反思[J].山西大学学报.第27卷第3期,2004(5)
[31]郭奕玲,沈慧君.物理学史[M],北京：清华大学出版社,1993
[32][丹麦]赫尔奇·克拉夫.科学史学导论[M].任定成译.北京.北京大学出版社,2005
[33]黄祖洽.现代物理学前沿选讲[M].北京：科学出版社,2007.
[34]黄政新.爱因斯坦学术思想与EPR问题[M].今日中国出版社,1997.
[35]韩艳.关于“判决性实验”的历史述评[J].湖北大学学报.第28卷.第4期.2001(7)
[36]韩林合.分析的形而上学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2003.
[37]贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.
[38][西德]W·海森堡,物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.科学出版社，1974.
[39][美]鲁道夫·卡尔纳普.卡尔纳普思想自述[M].陈晓山涂敏译.上海.上海译文出版社,1985.
[40][美]鲁道夫·卡尔纳普.科学哲学导论[M].张华夏,李平译.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[41]金尚年.量子力学的物理基础和哲学背景[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007.99
[42]兰征.“判决性实验”可能吗?[J].自然辩证法研究.第2卷.第3期.
[43]刘文君,韩艳.关于“判决性实验”的再思考[J].华中师范大学学报.1995(6)
[44]卢旺林.拉卡托斯科学研究纲领方法论[J].江西财经大学学报.2006(5)
[45]刘治.从贝尔不等式到量子信息“热”[J].大学物理.2005年10月.第24卷第10期：40-43.
[46]罗嘉昌.爱因斯坦定域性破坏的哲学意义——兼评过程哲学的解释[J].自然辩证法通讯.1981(3)
[47][比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991
[48]李蕴才主编.高等量子力学[M].开封：河南大学出版社,2000
[49][美]卡尔·G·亨普尔.自然科学的哲学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[50][美]内格尔.科学的结构：科学说明的逻辑问题[M].徐向东译.上海：上海译文出版社,2005
[51][英]培根.新工具[M].陈伟功编译.北京：北京出版社,2008
[52]
[53]孙小礼.从“判决性实验”引起的思考[J].哲学研究,1988(12)
[54]孙小礼主编.现代科学的哲学争论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[55][美]M.H.沙摩斯.物理史上的重要实验[M].北京：科学出版社,1985
[56][英]索论森.悖论简史[M].贾红雨译.北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[57]申先甲,林可济,主编.科学悖论集[M],湖南科学技术出版社,1998.
[58]舒国萱.迪昂-蒯因论点对判决性实验的意见[J].自然辩证法研究.第24卷第12期.2008(12)
[59]舒国萱.宇称不守恒——实验对理论的判决性反驳[J].自然辨证法研究.第31卷.总180期.2009(2)
[60]沈惠川.贝尔定理和贝尔不等式[J].自然杂志.1996.18(14)：240-144.
[61]王福山主编.近代物理学史研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.
[62]王福山主编.近代物理学史研究(二)[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1986.
[63]王自华,桂起权.海森堡传[M].长春：长春出版社,1999.
[64]王贵友,科学技术哲学导论[M].北京：人民出版社,2005
[65]万小龙.范·弗拉森的量子力学哲学研究[M].中山大学出版社,2006.
[66]万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
[67]万小龙.范·弗拉森对EPR关联的分析[J].自然辩证法研究,第20卷第4期,2004(4)
[68]万小龙,姜小慧.全同粒子与真假孙悟空之比较研究[J].淮阴师范学院学报,2010(1)
[69]王维.科学基础论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1996
[70]王阳.迪昂-蒯因论点与科学论证模式的转变[J].科学技术与辩证法.第25卷第4期.2008(8)
[71]王阳.论迪昂论点与奎因论点的差别[J].科学技术与辨证法.第26卷第2期.2009(4)
[72]吴国林.量子非定域性及其哲学意义[J].哲学研究.2006(9)
[73]吴国林.量子信息本质探究[J].科学技术与辩正法,第22卷第6期,2005(12)；
[74]吴国林.量子纠缠及其哲学意义[J].自然辩正法研究,2005年7月,第21卷第7期；
[75]吴国林.量子信息哲学正在兴起[J].哲学动态,2006(10)；
[76]杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.
[77]肖巍.为什么没有“判决性实验”[J].复旦学报.1990(5)
[78]薛杰.论科学理论的系统发育机制[J].华中师范大学学报.1991(1)
[79]肖太陶.吴健雄与物理学史上的三个判决性实验[J].自然辨证法研究.第22卷第5期.2006(5)
[80][英]伊恩·斯图尔特.自然之数：数学想象的虚幻实境[M].潘涛译.刘华杰较.上海：上海科学技术出版社,2007.
[81][英]伊姆雷·拉卡托斯.科学研究纲领方法论[M].兰征译.上海：上海译文出版社,2005
[82]张建军.广义逻辑悖论研究及其社会文化功能[R].桂林：中国辩证逻辑2005年学术讨论会大会报告,2005年11月。
[83]张建军.黄展骥.矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998
[84]张建军.黄展骥.矛盾与悖论研究[M].香港：黄河文化出版社,1992
[85]张建军.科学的难题——悖论[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1990
[86]张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.
[87]张大松.《科学探索的奥秘》的内蕴与启迪[J].现代哲学.1990(2)
[88]郑祥福,洪伟.科学的精神[M].上海：上海三联书店,2001
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.329
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.329
3爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.329
4爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
3爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.335
1 N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.
3 E. Schr6dinger. Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems[J], Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555(1935).
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.448-449
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.449
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.451
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.451
1[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M],庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.68
2 J.S.Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics[G]. Cambridge University Press,2004.14
2桂起权,姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
1 John F. Clauser. Michael A. Home, Abner Shimony and Richard A.Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories [J], Physical Review Letters, Vol.23, No.15,13 OCT.1969.880-884.
1 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M], Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.120
1黄祖洽.现代物理学前沿选讲[M].北京：科学出版社,2007.71.
2王福山主编.近代物理学史研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.115
3[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.19
1[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.163
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.21
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.23
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.17
2王福山 主编.近代物理学史研究(二)[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1986.121.
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.179-180.
1转引自戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.123
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.160
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.160
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.131
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.162
3[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.165
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.195
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.203
2张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.124-125.
3张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.119
4张巨青主编.科学研究的艺术——科学方法导论[M].武汉：湖北人民出版社,1988.119
1黄祖洽.现代物理学前沿选讲[M].北京：科学出版社,2007.75
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.52
1[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.58
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982..46
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982..57
4[美]阿伯拉罕·派斯.基本粒子物理学史[M].关洪、杨建邺、王自华、付冬梅译.武汉：武汉出版社,2009.272
1 S. Rozental ed, Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues[M]. North-Holland Pub.Co.,1967.95
2 C.Weiner ed. History of Twentienth Century Physics[M]. Academic Press,1977.134
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.292。
4戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.293。
5转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.293。
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.294。
2杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.660
3转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.661
1转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.661
2转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.661
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
1[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译.北京：商务印书馆,1982.88
4[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团,上海科技出版社,2008.177
5转引自,[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.169
6[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.170
1转引自,[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.172
2[美]曹天予.20世纪场论的概念发展[M].吴新忠李宏芳李继堂译桂起权校.上海：上海世纪出版集团上海科技出版社,2008.172
1[西德]W·海森伯.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.13
2杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.660
1转引自,物理学思想史[M].杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.666
2 Peter Gibbins. Particles and Paradoxes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.91
3[英]A.F.查尔默斯.科学究竟是什么[M](第三版).鲁旭东译.北京：商务印书馆,2007.30
1[西德] w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社.197411
2[西德]w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.11
3[西德]W海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社，197413
3[西德]w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.11
5[西德]w海森堡.物理学与哲学——现代科学中的革命[M].范岱年译.北京：科学出版社,1974.123
1[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.42
1转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.669
2转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.671
3戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.4
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.267
2 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.27
2 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
3 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
4 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
5 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1974.41
1[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.116
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.447
3近代物理学史研究[M].王福山主编.上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.211
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.211
2转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.67
3转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.673
1杨仲耆,申先甲,主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.674
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.299
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.300
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.302
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.303-304
3转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.304
1转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.309.
2戴维斯, 布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.10
1[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.117
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.241
1王福山主编.近代物理学史研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1983.226-227
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.114
2转引自,[美]内格尔.N.科学的结构：科学说明的逻辑问题[M].徐向东译.上海：上海译文出版社,2005.265
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.108
2 G.Zweig. Proc.fourth int. conf. on barvon resonances [M]. Ed. N.Iseur. Univ.Toronto Press,1980.439
3爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.170
4爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.193
1 Born, M. (ed.).The Born-Einstein Letters[M]. London:MacMillan,1971.82.
2N.玻尔.原子物理学和人类知识[M].北京：商务印书馆,1964.66
3[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.105
4[比]雷昂·罗森菲尔德.量子革命[M].戈革译.北京：商务印书馆,1991.113
5爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.302-303
6转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.689
1转引自,杨仲耆,申先甲主编.物理学思想史[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,1993.689
1[美]阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海科学技术文献出版社,2008.59
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.102
3 A.Einstein, B.Podolsky and N.Rosen. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? [J]. Physical Review, Volume 47, May 15,1935.777
4 A.Einstein, B.Podolsky and N.Rosen. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? [J]. Physical Review, Volume 47, May 15,1935.777
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.367
1 M.Jammer. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics[M]. John Wiley & Sons,1974.121-122.
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.373
3戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.374
1 Peter Gibbins. Particles and Paradoxes [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.63
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.376
1转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.377
2戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.377
(?) S.Rozental ed, Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues[M]. North-Holland Pub.Co., 1967.107
4爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.231.
1爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.231
2关洪.量子力学的基本概念[M].高等教育出版社,1990.
1戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.381
2转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.380
3转引自,戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.382
戈革.尼尔斯·玻尔——他的生平、学术和思想[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1985.387
1关洪.一代神话：哥本哈根学派[M].武汉：武汉出版社,2002.135
2爱因斯坦文集[M],第一卷.许良英范岱年编译.北京：商务印书馆,1976.2
3转引自,霍华德(1989),Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem[M]. Notre Dame, Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.224
1贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.101
2 N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
1 N.Bohr. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?[J]. Physical Review, Volume 48, October 15,1935.696-702
1白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.18
2白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.71
1 S.Rozental ed. Niels Bohr, His life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues [M]. North-Holland Pub.Co.,1967.95
1戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.9
1[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译..北京：商务印书馆,1982.34
2[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译..北京：商务印书馆,1982.34
3[美]戴维·玻姆.量子理论[M].侯德彭译..北京：商务印书馆,1982.35
1 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.134
2 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.134
3 John F. Clauser, Michael A. Home, Abner Shimony and Richard A. Holt. Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories[J]. Physical Review Letters, Vol.23, No.15,13 OCT.1969.880-884.
1桂起权,姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
2 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.120
3由于CHSH不等式取消了隐变量理论这个预设,所以CHSH不等式以后,定域性预设成为主要考察对象。
4 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.107
1 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.163
2 R.A.Bertlmann & A.Zeilinger ed. Quantum [Un]speakable-From Bell to Quantum Information[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verleg Berlin Herdelberg,2002.120
1申先甲,林可济,主编.科学悖论集[M],湖南科学技术出版社,1998.160-161
2申先甲,林可济,主编.科学悖论集[M],湖南科学技术出版社,1998.161
1戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.37
1戴维斯，布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.37
2戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.38
1戴维斯,布朗合编.原子中的幽灵[M].易心洁译.洪定国校.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1992.38
1白彤东.实在的张力：EPR论争中的爱因斯坦、玻尔和泡利[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2009.38
2转引自,阿米尔·艾克塞尔.纠缠态——物理世界第一谜[M].庄星来译.上海：上海文献出版社,2008.38
1[美]戴维.波姆.整体性与隐缠序：卷层宇宙中的意识[M].洪定国,张桂权,查有梁译.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2004.199
1罗嘉昌.爱因斯坦定域性破坏的哲学意义——兼评过程哲学的解释[J].自然辩证法通讯,1981(3).
2成素梅.量子非定域性概念的哲学意义和内涵[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2004(1).
3吴国林.量子非定域性及其哲学意义[J].哲学研究,2006(9).
1 M.D.Reid, P.D.Drummond, W.P.Bowen, E.G.Cavalcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A.Bachor, U.L.Andersen and G. Leuchs,
1本节内容已整理发表。参见,桂起权姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
2孙小礼.从“判决性实验”引起的思考[J].哲学研究,1988(12)
1孙小礼.从“判决性实验”引起的思考[J].哲学研究,1988(12)
2转引自,兰征.“判决性实验”可能吗?[J].自然辩证法研究,第2卷,第3期.
1 Otto Neurath.Unified Science and Its Encyclopaedia [J].Philosophy of Science, Vol.4, No.2 (Apr.,1937), pp.265-277
2 Karl Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery [M],2nded. New York:Basic Books.1968:111.
3桂起权,姜琳.判决性实验的相对确定性与判决效力[J].山东科技大学学报,2006(1)。
1舒国萱.宇称不守恒与判决性实验,中山大学博士论文[D].2009年6月1日答辩。
1本章主要内容已经整理发表。参见：桂起权姜小慧.EPR悖论、量子远程关联及其判决性实验——从逻辑观点看[J].科学技术哲学研究,2009(6)
2[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社,2001.725
3转引自,[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社,2001.725
1张建军,黄展骥.矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.106
2张建军,黄展骥.矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.106
1张建军,黄展骥：矛盾与悖论新论[M].石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998.106
2张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.17
3张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.18
4张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.20
5张建军.逻辑悖论研究引论[M].南京：南京大学出版社,2002.22
1桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.175-176
2转引自,桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.176
3桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.176
1桂起权.当代数学哲学与逻辑哲学入门[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,1991.176-178
2张建军.广义逻辑悖论研究及其社会文化功能[R].桂林：中国辩证逻辑2005年学术讨论会大会报告,2005年11月。
1贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.96
2贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.97
3王贵友.科学技术哲学导论[M].北京：人民出版社,2005.188
1贺天平桂起权刘毅唐超群.科学实验之光[M].北京：科学出版社,2009.98
1张建军.科学的难题——悖论[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1990.293-295
2张建军.科学的难题——悖论[M].杭州：浙江科学技术出版社,1990.298
1 W.V.Quine. Identity,ostension,and Hypostasis[J]. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.47, No.22. Oct.26,1950.621-633.
1 Peter Pesic. Seeing Double:Shared Identities in Physics, Philosophy, and Literature[M].The MIT Press,2002.25
2[英]索论森,贾红雨译.悖论简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.3,R216
3这里我们将把“不可识别(indiscernible)"与“不可区分(indistinguishable)"这个两个词加以区别,我们认为前者是认识论意义上的,而后者是本体论意义上的,作出这种区别对于微观粒子个体性问题的探讨是非常关键的；微观粒子的全同性究竟是意味着认识论意义上的不可识别还是本体论上的不可区分,还有待于进一步的探讨,而我们更倾向于前者。
4[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社.2001.466.笔者对译文做了调整。
1[英]布宁,余纪元.西方哲学英汉对照辞典[M].王柯平译.北京：人民出版社.2001.466.笔者对译文做了调整
2万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
1万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
2万小龙.全同粒子的哲学问题[J].哲学研究,2005(2)。
3 Don Howord. Einstein on locality and separability [J].Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,1985(16):171-201
4 Don Howord. Holism,Separability, and The Metaphysical Implications of The Bell Expriments, In Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory ---Reflections on Bell's Theorem [M], ed. James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.224-253.
5 Don Howord. Holism,Separability, and The Metaphysical Implications of The Bell Expriments, In Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory---Reflections on Bell's Theorem [M], ed James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin. Indiana:University of Notre Dame Press,1989.249.