As someone who's mostly non-mathematical, every popularized or semi-popularized article about the subject of QM interpretations leaves me wondering why everyone is so steadfastly prejudiced against non-locality? It just doesn't seem that precious to me. It always seems like the odd one out.
because all our physics at the macro-scale have local causality.
Also, this is just me but how does the speed of light constrain the speed of motion if quantum physics are non-local? There's no such thing as a speed limit if you can teleport information.
Well, people say you can't "teleport information". That so called quantum teleportation doesn't allow superluminal signaling. So that's just a fact about how the world works, I guess.
What I'm saying is that people (who understand stuff I can't begin to comprehend) seem to dismiss out of hand an interpretation that includes nonlocality, but presumably it doesn't conflict with anything else that we actually observe whether you treat it one way or the other. It doesn't contradict all our physics with light speed limitations because it's defined consistently in the first place.
I'm just taking this on faith, but it appears that there is no issue of reality being this or that, but more of an aesthetic problem where something implying faster than light action is just unpleasant because it seems like a universal principle isn't so universal.
I want to read something popularized about what you get if you decide that an interpretation with nonlocality is just fine.
As someone who is not steadfastly against non-locality: you have a sort of bizarre tension with special relativity, in which spacetime is explicitly locally causal. Tim Maudlin actually wrote an interesting and thorough book on this: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quantu...
