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.