Explanatory Strain: Bell’s Theorem and the Universe

Following our discussion of the false choice between reality and locality, Gribbin immediately escalates the stakes:

“Although the jumping-off point for Bell's Theorem was an attempt to understand quantum physics…these results do not apply only to quantum physics. They apply to the world — the Universe. Whether or not you think that quantum physics might one day be replaced as a description of how the world works, this will not change things. The experiments show that local reality does not apply to the Universe.”

At first glance, this sounds decisive and awe-inspiring. But a careful reading reveals multiple forms of explanatory strain, now deployed at the level of scope and universality.

1. Scope inflation

The experimental results concern specific entangled systems under controlled conditions. By claiming they apply to “the Universe,” the text stretches formal results far beyond their domain. This rhetorical leap gives the impression that the formal violation of local realism is a cosmic fact, rather than a feature of particular relational structures instantiated in experiments. Relational ontology makes this clear: the structured potential and its instantiations exist within the context that defines them, and there is no necessity to extrapolate universally.

2. The illusion of inevitability

“Whether or not you think that quantum physics might one day be replaced…this will not change things.”

This sentence frames the conclusions as independent of theory, producing a sense of unassailable certainty. It obscures that intelligibility arises from the structure of the system and the rules for instantiation, not from a universal, theory-independent dictate. Relational ontology replaces this pseudo-absolutism with system-relative constraints that are actualised perspectivally.

3. Dramatisation of non-locality

“The experiments show that local reality does not apply to the Universe.”

Here, local reality is globalised, giving the reader the impression that the cosmos itself behaves paradoxically. In reality, Bell inequalities constrain correlations in the measured system; they do not mandate any absolute cosmic non-locality. From a relational ontology perspective, locality and actualisation are perspectival properties, and the violation of classical expectations is intelligible without invoking universal paradox.

4. Diagnosis

Gribbin’s universalisation is a textbook example of explanatory strain: the drama of the formal result is amplified through language and scope. By extrapolating from specific entangled systems to the entire Universe and presenting outcomes as inevitable, the narrative heightens the sense of mystery. The phenomena themselves do not require such awe; the sense of cosmic paradox is imported by our representational habits.

Placed after the previous post on Bell’s theorem, this post functions as a diagnostic continuation, showing how explanatory strain escalates through rhetorical amplification, setting the stage for a relational-ontology framing in which correlations are structural, instantiations are perspectival, and no cosmic paradox arises.