This is a reprinting of Bohr’s response to the EPR paper, wherein Bohr relies on his principle of complementarity to demonstrate an ambiguity in the criterion of reality as described by EPR and to argue that quantum mechanics is in fact a complete description of reality given the bounds of complementarity.

This is a reprinting from Jammer (1974) of Podolsky’s unpublished response to Kemble’s criticisms of the EPR paper. Podolsky rightly criticises Kemble for missing the point of EPR’s argument and adds a few comments agreeing with Kemble that a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is best – yet Podolsky maintains such an interpretation is incomplete.

This is a reprinting of Flint’s response to EPR, originally signed only as ‘H.T.F.’ Flint begins with a fairly accurate outline of the argument in the EPR paper – with which he agrees – but then he expresses doubts as to the validity of the reality criterion. Without describing the nature of these doubts, he concludes by further agreeing with EPR in desiring a more direct description of reality than the one currently provided by quantum mechanics.

This is a reprinting of Bohr’s note to Nature advertising his forthcoming response to the EPR paper. It is very brief but contains in essence the argumentative tack Bohr would in fact employ in his full response to EPR.

This chapter provides a complete list and brief analyses of published and unpublished responses to EPR in 1935 (virtually all of which are reprinted as later chapters in this book). We invite a renewed consideration of certain contributors not much discussed elsewhere in the literature. These include going beyond Kemble’s short criticism of EPR to his ensuing disagreement with Margenau about the viability of an ensemble interpretation of the wavefunction, and also a response to Kemble’s note on EPR by Podolsky himself. We also examine the correspondence between Margenau and Einstein in the wake of EPR, discussing the role of the collapse postulate, and finally we discuss two papers by Furry, which although not entirely satisfactory qua a response to EPR’s arguments, are nevertheless of great potential interest for the foundations literature more generally.

This is a reprinting of the famous May 1935 paper in Physical Review by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. In this paper, the authors argued that the wavefunction fails to provide a complete description of reality unleashing the debate analysed in this volume.

This is a transcription of a typescript Kemble had appended to a letter to Margenau in 1935. In this paragraph, Kemble admits that his initial published response to EPR missed the point of their argument.