Right, let me clarify, I didn't mean that kind of hard determinism when I used the example of a common cause. Common causation doesn't even necesarilly always imply determinism.Not if everything is predetermined/superdeterministic. Bell himself commented on this loophole several times.
Bell told us in "Bertlmann's socks" that there were four possible *alternative* diagnoses of the "problem" and only one of them was "locality". Moreover his list wasn't even exhaustive. There is also "Bell's fifth position" namely that no-one will ever be able to create the initial conditions to create a successful loophole-free Bell-CHSH type experiment - because of quantum uncertainty principles ie because of QM.That's where Bell enters to tell you there is indeed problem with locality so in the end you need nonlocality.
Mine is to reject both, but as you mentioned in another thread locality is dependant on your definition of locality. My definition is the cluster decomposition property - locality applies only to uncorrelated systems.BTW my personal preference, today, is to reject *realism*.
If you are interested in the foundations of QM, in my experience its vital to think through it yourself and reach your own conclusions. There is a lot of misinformation out there, as, answering questions on the forum has taught me only too well.Have an opinion, to be sure, but be prepared for it to be changed. Distinguish facts from opinions. Don't believe everything you read just because famous or respectable people wrote it.
Mine too! I believe that there are not any easy answers and people who tell you it is all very simple, have over-simplified or misunderstood or are fooling themselves.My view has changed considerably over time.