  An examination is made of the differing implications from applying the two
mainstream interpretations of probability, frequentist and Bayesian, to QM
(quantum mechanics) theory for the Bohm-EPR experiment. The joint probability
distribution for the possible spin outcomes for two particles with coupled
spins is examined. Contrasting conclusions are made: (i) Under the frequentist
interpretation, the QM spin distribution implies a widely-discussed
non-locality because probabilistic conditioning on a spin measurement is viewed
as corresponding to a causal influence. Under the Bayesian interpretation, this
conditioning is viewed as providing information relevant to the spin
probabilities and the argument for non-locality loses its force. (ii) The
frequentist interpretation leads to the locality condition used by John Bell in
1964 to establish conditions for the existence of hidden variables behind the
spin probability distribution but this condition is not consistent with the
product (Bayes) rule of probability theory. Under the Bayesian interpretation,
there is no motivation for this locality condition and a new stochastic
hidden-variable model is given that reproduces the spin distribution. (iii)
Bell's original 1964 inequality provides a necessary condition for the
existence of a third-order joint probability distribution for three spin
variables that is compatible through marginalization with the second-order
joint distributions for the three possible spin pairs. Bell's inequality is
logically equivalent to the 1969 CHSH inequality that involves expectations of
four pairs of four spin variables; the CHSH inequality must be satisfied in
order for a fourth-order joint probability distribution for the four spin
variables to exist. When any of these inequalities are violated, a joint
probability distribution for three spin outcomes fails to be valid because some
probabilities are negative.
