Did John Bell “prove” that quantum physics is non-local, therefore the world is non-local? Or did he rather show that if we try to *replace* quantum theory with a classical theory, then *that classical theory* must be non-local? Does this just turn out to be a disagreement about the definition of “locality” or is there a substantial issue here?

**Resources**

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Bell’s Theorem

Pro non-locality? - Scholarpedia – Bell’s theorem
- Sidney Coleman’s “Quantum Mechanics in Your Face” video

I believe this last one is clearly taking a position against non-locality. Watch especially the part about 20 or 30 minutes into the lecture, where he has set up mermin’s version of Bell and he clearly opines that QM does*not*say there’s a connection over the spacelike interval, but that you*either*believe QM*or*you believe there’s such a connection.