Abstract

Michael Dickson has examined the ‘could’ version of my nonlocality theorem, and claims to have found a flaw. Several errors in his argument are pointed out. The main problem is that he replaces my locality criterion by a substitute that is too weak to do the job. His justification for making this change is critically flawed by a failure to differentiate my sufficient condition from the converse necessary condition. Nevertheless, Dickson succeeds in deriving all but the final step of my argument. My justification for this final crucial step is discussed here in some detail.