To sum up, with less snark, because I&#x27;m not directing the snark at you... It&#x27;s directed at Bell, as posthumous snark, since I&#x27;m sure he won&#x27;t feel it.<p>Anyway, I don&#x27;t ascribe to the school of thought that tells us that simply because superposition works on paper, that such a predictive tool accurately reflects events occurring in reality.<p>It may help us, to understand and <i>deal with</i> curious events, but Bell hasn&#x27;t accomplished anything profound in making his pronouncements.<p>All he did was insist that people shift conceptual placeholders about, to help reorganize a mental model for imagining representations of an idea. To regard his hand-wavy declarations as a crystallized description of reality is nonsense.<p>Ask this: If something cannot be touched, known or inferred, then how can he assert that reality reshapes itself in reverse upon reaching an event, or that an untouchable relationship persists behind the facade or our reality?<p>Furthermore, his arguments are pure semantics. One is not allowed to presume independent unrelated <i>inaccessible</i> slots, one must assume <i>related inaccessible</i> slots. Even though the relationship of the slots is not actually revealed until after it no longer matters whether there was a relationship or not. Oh, and by the way, that relationship transcends reality as we know it, possibly implying a parallel channel of communication, external to our world.<p>Sure, so much better than just stating that there is information missing from our representational model at certain moments in the sequence of events.