RandallB said:
And to reply again for almost as many times: A collection of Multiple Worlds to account for the various outcomes to provide a solution certainly is NOT Local to our classical 3D sense of reality or what is meant by Einstein / Bell Local. As I’ve said before it is acceptable to think of a Non-Local version of “Local” for theories such as MWI, BM, etc.
If you can formulate the theory in a geometrical way (in other words, if its formulation is Lorentz-invariant), then it is "local" enough to me. This is not the case for BM, but it is for MWI. Any genuine projection cannot be written in such a Lorentz-invariant way, and hence violates locality. However, the unitary dynamics can.
BUT, The mere idea of Multiple Dimensions or Multiple Worlds converted into a Theory is not sufficient to claim something like MWI or BM kills Bell's theorem.
What you need, for Bell's theorem to apply, is that there are
definite outcomes at Alice and at Bob, because we are talking about probabilities for them to be realized, and it is this probability measure which cannot be set up without simultaneous knowledge of the two polarizer settings. But in MWI, there is no such thing as the unique outcome at Alice and a unique outcome at Bob, so there is no probability measure to be set up in the first place. Hence, Bell's theorem doesn't apply to this case.
Not without producing some real way of demonstrating that an additional dimension, or in your case at least one of the Many Worlds, actually exists.
No, it is a matter of logic. One cannot say that a certain conclusion holds in all cases, when there is demonstrably a counter example - independent of whether that counter example is actually true or not in reality. The conclusion here would be that "physics is non-local", while there is a clear logical construction which reproduces the *observed* probabilities, and which doesn't suffer an explicit non-locality. Even if in the end, this logical construction doesn't correspond to reality, its logical existence proves that the reasoning that lead to the "non-locality" conclusion is erroneous. In the same way as the very construction of BM proves that there CAN be a hidden-variable construction that makes the same predictions as QM, contrary to the "theorem" by von Neumann. The very logical existence of BM makes that the theorem by von Neumann must be false. In the same way, the logical existence of MWI proves that the conclusion of non-locality from EPR is erroneous.
Neither of us has the right to declare themselves as Right or that Bell results can be ignored as meaningless; unless verifiable proof is provided.
Of course Bell's result is not meaningless. Only, his theorem doesn't apply to those cases where his premisses are not valid. Now it seems like such an evident premisse that Alice and Bob "have" a result, but in MWI, that's simply not the case: they both have both results. So Bell's theorem doesn't apply to MWI.
So do us a favor and identify your MWI theory as a Theory and what it might mean IF it is ever proven, and stop representing it as a given fact.
I’m betting I’ll find a HVT before you can find even one additional “World”. But till one of us does, neither is even a main stream theory let alone worthy of being put forward as fact.
MWI, as a logical construction, exists, for a fact. Whether it corresponds to reality is a totally different matter. The same can be said about BM.
Now, MWI is entirely formulated in a lorentz invariant way (which means it is local, to me). So there clearly exists a logical construction which 1) is lorentz-invariant (hence local) and 2) has all the observable predictions of standard QM.
As such, one cannot claim, that ALL thinkable schemes which obey 2) must violate 1), because there's a logical counter example.
I was clearly asking for a source to establish your claim for a determinate instead of deterministic universe.
Sure, I know this, I was merely teasing you. But admit it, it is kind of unbelievable that this wonderful consciousness of yours is so important in order for your brain to make observations, that it cannot do anything else but that ! 
my argument was that we measure information to increase in function of eigentime, so the mere ability to do that as well as the fact that it happens excludes CTC's by the mere argument you just repeated. The mere fact that we have authentic books dating before Jezus Christ means that there was no CTC going back to a later moment than that date.