Heine asked: "Richard, I am very curious as to why you would prefer non-realism to non-locality? To me, the distinction is purely philosophical, with (when we get to the core of it) both positions exhibiting identical mathematical content. So you can say I believe in both, or rather that I think they are the same in a Wittgenstein way."
I could just say "read my paper", just Section5 thereof, http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103 (note: now at version 5 and just finally finally revised and finally finally accepted). I could also say "because it resolves the measurement problem at the same time" - ie two metaphysical birds with one stone. See Section 5 of the same paper. I can also refer you to Boris Tsirelson's wonderful article on entanglement on Citizendium http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Entanglement_(physics)
The executive summary would be "Occam's razor"
I think it is a metaphysical position which moreover stimulates physics, rather than one which stifles it.
That's all I can make time for, for now, because I have a busy day today - early morning meeting with the rector of a university one of whose top professors is accused of plagiarism and worse (sloppy science, faked data) and I am one of the accusers. In fact the only one who dares not to be anonymous, at the moment.
