Abstract:I reassess the gedankenexperiment of Greenberger, Horne, Shimony and Zeilinger after twenty-five years, finding their influential claim to discovery of an inconsistency inherent in high dimensional formulations of local realism to arise from a fundamental error of logic. They manage this by presuming contradictory premises: that a specific linear combination of four angles involved in their proposed parallel experiments on two pairs of electrons equals both $\pi$ and $0$ at the same time. Ignoring this while presuming the contradictory implications of these two conditions, they introduce the contradiction themselves. The notation they use in their "derivation" is not sufficiently ornate to represent the entanglement in the double electron spin pair problem they design, confounding their error. The situation they propose actually motivates only an understanding of the full array of symmetries involved in their problem. In tandem with the error now recognized in the supposed defiance of Bell's inequality by quantum probabilities, my reassessment of their work should motivate a reevaluation of the current consensus outlook regarding the principle of local realism and the proposition of hidden variables.

Two presumptions in Goedel's interpretation of his own, formal, reasoning that are classically objectionable

On a fallacy concerning I-am-unprovable sentences: what to take home from Goedel's introduction

The Goedel's legacy: revisiting the Logic

Paradox regained: Life beyond Goedel's shadow

Three beliefs that lend illusory legitimacy to Cantor's diagonal argument

A common Misconception about the Categorical Arithmetic

On Godel's treatment of the undecidable in 1931

Comments on S Kauffman's paper <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0907.2492" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2492">arXiv:0907.2492</a>

Going Forth and Drawing Back: an Intensional Approach in Nonmonotonic Inference.

The GHSZ argument: a gedankenexperiment requiring more denken

Is there a duality in the classical acceptance of non-constructive, foundational, concepts as axiomatic?

Presumptive Reasoning in a Paraconsistent Setting

Prawitz's Conjecture is False; So What?

Gödel's Program in Set Theory

What If Turing Had Preceded Gödel?

Self-reference Upfront: A Study of Self-referential Gödel Numberings

An analysis of the constructive content of Henkin's proof of Gödel's completeness theorem

A logic for default reasoning

Incompleteness for stably consistent formal systems

Haag as a How-To Theorem

Hard Proofs and Good Reasons