Common Misrepresentation of the Einstein– Podolsky–rosen Argument

The argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), advanced by these authors in support of the thesis that quantummechanics cannot provide a complete description of a physical system, has been receiving close attention in foundational studies and debates on quantum mechanics ever since the famous paper of EPR appeared in 1935 [1]. Not lacking in subtlety, the EPR argument was bound to be misrepresented frequently in the extensive writings on the subject. A particular version of the EPR argument, analyzed critically as a misrepresentation already more than 25 years ago by Hooker [2], who classified it as “the third related EPR argument,” has been appearing persistently in the literature, especially in that aimed at a more general audience, and in popular accounts. The present paper is occasioned by a clearly stated occurrence of this version in a book on the relatively recent but already influential “consistent-histories,” or