A good point. Your argument for nonlocality seems to rest on the relationship of the wave function to nature. The problem is that qm evolutions and interactions occur in an imaginary space. It would seem that you have the same problem as MWI'ers in that there's no compelling reason to accept the wave function as being a complete description of *physical reality* in the first place.ttn said:My point is really that there's a kind of hierarchy to knowledge. Certain statements/conclusions rest on others such that if you give up one thing, you must also give up (as now meaningless) the other things that depend on it.
So, the question of locality-nonlocality in nature remains an open one.