You are one of the very few people I have ever heard even discuss that issue.
I have studied Bell’s ideas a fair amount - much of the math is very daunting, on the level of say, Diracs writings.
But the non-locality inequality is really very simple. An educated 8th grader could understand it.
Historically, his theorem has been interpreted to be and idea that is about space, but not really about time.
Problem is, if there is non-locality in space, there is also non-locality in the time dimension(s)!
Non locality in the time dimension basically means you could wake up in the morning, open the door to get your newspaper, (assuming you still get one delivered!) and finding a perfectly healthy pterosaur on your porch.
It is, of course, extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely.
But it would not violate the laws of physics as they are understood today.
Thanks for your response. However, I’m not sure, or maybe I am too dense to see it, that you answered my question. I, too, have been amazed by Bell’s Theorem for years. Can’t say I get all of it or all of its implications. And,
you’re 100% correct that the math is not difficult and is unassailable, which has irritated many physicists for years.
But, it just seems to me that taking Bell’s ideas and proof to a logical conclusion, and maybe, maybe, embellishing things a little bit, one can find support for a universal consciousness in his numbers and the ramifications they entail. This would tend to support the theory talked about in the article.
Help me here if you can. Thanks.