I’m not sure I fully understand this, but it sounds like you know what you’re talking about.
That said, I looked a bit more at the Wikipedia page for the principle of locality and noticed this paragraph:
In 1935 Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in their EPR paradox theorised that quantum mechanics might not be a local theory, because a measurement made on one of a pair of separated but entangled particles causes a simultaneous effect, the collapse of the wavefunction, in the remote particle (i.e. an effect exceeding the speed of light). But because of the probabilistic nature of wavefunction collapse, this violation of locality cannot be used to transmit information faster than light. In 1964 John Stewart Bell formulated the “Bell inequality”, which, if violated in actual experiments, implies that quantum mechanics violates either locality or realism, another principle which relates to the value of unmeasured quantities. The two principles are commonly referred to as a single principle, local realism.
So it kind of sounds like the issue of entanglement is exactly what lead to the thing about local realism being formulated?
*looks a little deeper into Bell’s theorem*
No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Ah, there we have the original thing that drove us down this rabbit hole.
Anyway, I admit I’m not strong on quantum mechanics, and this is clearly something people much smarter than me have been discussing for decades, so they probably know what’s up, though it doesn’t make sense to me to (as the case seems to be based on the previous ask on this issue) assume that locality is a thing just because it’s convenient for our scientific methods that it is, especially if it stops us from looking into more solid causes for quantum behavior.
Krixwell Liveblogs 