her epistemic relation to it, and there is no need to assume that her measurement of her own system has a physical influence on the second. The same considerations apply for Bob. Predictions for the results of measurements derived on the basis of entangled states may still be baffling and unexpected, but the dynamics of quantum states do not give rise to any incompatibility between the principles of relativity theory and those of quantum theory as construed by the epistemic conception of states. The paradox of quantum non-locality (inasmuch as it resides in the challenge of reconciling the time-evolution of quantum states with the principles of relativity theory) is *dissolved* by rejecting its conceptual presupposition, namely, the ontic conception of states and the interpretation of the time-evolution of quantum states as a physical process.

In analogy to the case of the measurement problem, the dissolution of the problem of “non-locality” just outlined is no demonstration that there are no further problems linked to reconciling quantum theory with relativity theory. Several authors claim that there are indeed serious problems, for example that quantum theory seems to violate Bell’s principle of *local causality*[^7], which, as it may seem, can only be accounted 