Philosophy 382
Bradford Skow


			Supplement to Locality Handout: non-locality for cheap?



Scenario A:

	I am in Amherst and my only brother is in Los Angeles.

		Event C = my only brother dies.
		
		Event E = I become brotherless.
		
		

Scenario B:
	
	I am in Amherst and my only brother is in Los Angeles. My brother is 
	President of Paramount Pictures. One of the by-laws of the company says
	that if my brother dies, I become President.

		Event C = my only brother dies.
		
		Event E = I become President of Paramount Pictures.



An argument that Scenario A and Scenario B violate spatial locality:


	1.	C is a direct cause of E.

	2.	C and E are spatially separated.

	3.	If C is a direct cause of E and C and E are spatially separated, then 
		spatial locality is false.

	4.	Therefore, spatial locality is false.




The conclusion of this argument is false. Since it is valid, one of the premises must be false. Which one?

(The answer my depend on whether we are considering Scenario A or Scenario B.)


Rejecting the first premise:


	Lange's response to the argument, as applied to scenario A, is on p.22. How 
	would he reply to the argument, as applied to scenario B?
		
		

Rejecting the second premise:

	Perhaps E occurs in the same place C does. 
	
	
	
Rejecting the third premise:

	This isn't really an option; this premise follows directly from the 
	definition of "spatial locality."



Some philosophers (e.g. David Lewis, in his paper "Events") deny that there is any such event as my becoming brotherless, or my becoming President of Paramount. Which premise of the argument do these philosophers reject?