Thank you JesseM. I appreciate this detail. I have some basic questions.
1. Could you define for me (briefly) and distinguish Bell's use of the words observable and beable? Is Bell's lambda an observable or a beable or something else -- like what? What size set might it be?
2. If Bell's lambda were an infinite set of spinors (because we want a realistic general "Bell" vector that applies to both bosons and fermions), then wouldn't we need a
G to define the infinite subset of spinors that were relevant to the applicable conditional? You seem to require that we would know a priori
which of that infinite set satisfied this subset a
G conditional? This a priori subset being the lambda you would require here?
3. Beside which, if a
G were implicit in your
lambda, its restatement/extraction by me would be superfluous and not change the outcome that attaches to the disputed conditional? Note that you seem to require lambda to be an undefined infinite set, perhaps not recognizing that it is an infinite subset (selected by the condition a
G, out of your undefined infinite set) which is relevant here?
4. As with the ether experiments and their outcome, don't Bell-tests show that Bell's supposition re Bell's lambda is false?