The cheapest approach is to fail to differentiate between different labeling systems that conform to all known observations. In this way, you stick to just the observations themselves.
Conventional interpretation of the Bell experiments violates this by implying c as a universal speed barrier. There is no evidence that such a barrier applies to things we have no experience of.
I have no wish to defend the ‘standard’ interpretation, whatever that is—but if you stick just to the observations themselves and provide no additional interpretation, then you are passing up an opportunity for massive compaction by way of explanation.
Moreover, supposing that the c limit only applies to the things we can see implies adding rules that go very far from sticking just to the observations themselves.
The cheapest approach is to fail to differentiate between different labeling systems that conform to all known observations. In this way, you stick to just the observations themselves.
Conventional interpretation of the Bell experiments violates this by implying c as a universal speed barrier. There is no evidence that such a barrier applies to things we have no experience of.
I have no wish to defend the ‘standard’ interpretation, whatever that is—but if you stick just to the observations themselves and provide no additional interpretation, then you are passing up an opportunity for massive compaction by way of explanation.
Moreover, supposing that the c limit only applies to the things we can see implies adding rules that go very far from sticking just to the observations themselves.