Dear David, Dec. 11, 1997 Your comments are quite justified. I have rewritten the `bad' paragraph. Please feel free to comment on it in any way you want to: I want the exchange to be as useful as possible to readers of all pursuations, and of course free of anything that is not on target. Time is not of the essence here: let's work together to produce an optimal package. I think I see in your latest comment the core of our difference. It has to do with the role and use of language and its connection to nature. You say that How can the issue be a connection between two events, one of them fictitious? It has to be an issue over the legitimate use of language. [This is at the heart of our debate.] But of course the words must be connected to nature: otherwise the whole thing is a nonstarter. The way I see it is that the proof of (S) under condition L2 is saying something about nature: it is saying that there is some constraint that connects what happens if R2 is performed to what would have happened if at the last moment some choice went the other way. Now ordinarily we say in quantum theory that one experiment is performed, and that is the only reality. But the EPR-Bohr debate goes deeper: it is fundamentally about some deeper conditions that impose constraints that relate to alternative possible situations. So it is true that we are concerned with the legitimate use of language: this language must be honed to tie correctly into the deeper structure of nature that is proved to be present by the proof of (S) under condition L2. But modal logic is designed to capture just such subtleties. So to me it seems completely unreasonable to throw away the tool that is exactlty suited to the task at hand. I see (S) under condition L2 as a real condition on how nature operates, not just as some verbal formula. It says that if the later choice is L2 then a certain connection must exist between the possibilities of the results of alternative possible measurements at the earlier time. If one throws away this natural meaning of the result, or adopts rules that do not correctly preserve this meaning then of course everything is lost: the connection to nature herself has been thrown out. It is of course essential that the meaning as regards nature be preserved by the rules that we adopt. Best regards, Henry ********