Explanatory Strain: Bell’s Theorem and the False Choice of Reality vs. Locality

John Gribbin introduces Bell’s theorem in chapter 2 with a classic statement of the apparent quantum paradox:

“'Reality' is the idea that there is a real world that exists whether or not anyone is looking at it, or measuring it. … If quantum mechanics is correct, Bell's Inequality must be violated. You can have a real world, with spooky action at a distance. Or you can have locality, at the cost of saying that nothing is real unless it is observed.”

At first glance, this is a clear, concise framing of the stakes. But a closer look reveals explanatory strain at work, in ways that echo our earlier discussions of the two-slit experiment and entanglement.

1. Loaded metaphors

The phrases “spooky action at a distance” and “nothing is real unless it is observed” are metaphorical shortcuts. They import classical intuitions about influence, causality, and temporality into a situation where they are not required. The language dramatises correlations between measurements, turning structural constraints into an apparent metaphysical crisis.

2. False dichotomy

Gribbin frames Bell’s theorem as forcing a choice: either accept faster-than-light influences or deny observer-independent reality. This is a binary that doesn’t actually exist in the formalism. The underlying correlations are structural: they constrain the possible joint outcomes of measurements. No influence needs to propagate between particles, and no reality needs to be suspended until observed. The drama is created by our representational habits, not by the system itself.

3. Temporal and causal slippage

“Spooky action” implies a temporal process: one measurement affecting another instantaneously. “Nothing is real unless observed” implies that observation creates reality. Both are narratives projected onto events that are fundamentally instantiations of structured potential, not sequential processes. The tension arises from trying to describe these instantiations using familiar temporal-causal intuition.

4. Ontological smuggling

By defining “reality” as observer-independent, the passage preserves the classical assumption that there is a hidden substrate. Relational ontology dissolves the supposed paradox: the “impossible choice” only appears impossible if reality is demanded to exist independently of construal. In fact, the correlations are intelligible as constraints on potential, and actualisation occurs perspectivally at measurement.

Diagnosis

This short passage exemplifies explanatory strain: classical intuitions about reality, locality, and temporal causation are imported via language to dramatise the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. The paradox is not in the phenomena, but in how the phenomena are described. Recognising this prepares the reader for a relational-ontology framing in which the correlations are structural, the instantiations are perspectival, and no spooky action is required.

Placed between the “electrons that decide” posts and the deeper technical discussion to follow, this post functions as a diagnostic hinge: it shows how explanatory strain manifests in the discussion of Bell’s theorem and primes the reader to see structural correlations without imagining metaphysical crises.