Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?

[Thomas Ray]

Secur wrote:  "I hope someone here can give a better answer to the question, 'Why not non-locality?'"

That's a good question, Secur.  Let's look at what transpired earlier:

"gill1109: In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's inequality. Therefore, if in this context we observe that Bell's inequality is violated, we may deduce that local realism is not true.

I agree.

If A then B.
But, not B.
Therefore, not A !"

The proposition is unconstructed.  You ask "why not?" nonlocality, and the answer is deduced as not-not-nonlocality.  It doesn't go anywhere except in circles.

Let A = nonlocality
Let B = local realism

The double negation proof fails to even acknowledge local realism, much less construct it.  So how can Gill's claim, "In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's theorem" be true?  What context?

Local realism (Einstein causality) is constructed explicitly in the measure space of special relativity, and implicitly in general relativity, assuming spacetime is real. ("All physics is local".)  If we were comparing apples to apples, context would be supplied by measure space.  What is the measure space of Bell-Aspect?

Heads I win, tails you lose.  While not a very good argument, it's an excellent con, so long as measure space is not defined.