Bell's Theorem - a paradox in reality

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
161

The above might be the least important thing that the Bell’s theorem proves.

What the Bell’s theorem proves most of all is that the nature of space, or even the ultimate nature of physical reality is NON-LOCAL, this being the reason why quantum entanglement is possible.

In other words, quantum entanglement is possible because what Albert Einstein called “distance”, is not something that is ultimately objectively physical.

If you have any doubts about space, or spacetime, not being objectively physical, meaning ultimately LOCAL in what Albert Einstein had deeply believed, then we have a topic on this forum that explores the possibility of [b]space being immaterial :

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198639#p2923493

      [/b]
162

woo woo

163

Seems like more quantum fantasy - although about electrons - very different than light photons. I understand James’ version of spin - accepting the make of an electron (certainly not a “point particle” - nor a solid object). I can’t see how electrons could possibly avoid spinning. When it comes to light photons - I can’t see how they could possibly have anything to do with spin other than to have an effect that draws quantum minded people to speculate spin just to attempt to maintain their half baked narrative – all politics.