It seems you are positing that fact rather than showing it to be necessary in the case of a local description. Obviously in various HV models there is a measurement-independent reality even for what in QM can be described by the word “superposition.” So your simply defining that “superposition” = “lack of counterfactual definiteness” does not really address the question you were responding to.
Of course I’m positing that fact – that’s what the question was! (‘How would the behavior entangled particles be explained via non-reality (lack of counterfactual definiteness)…?’)
The work in showing it to be necessary in case of a local (realist) description was already carried out by Bell…
Gah. It seemed to me the question was asking for an explanation rather than a “Bell already showed it” sort of comment, but whatever, this is not a productive dialog.
Agreed (though in all fairness, that’s also not the question you seemed to be answering in your first response). Perhaps allotrope can clarify what he intended to ask.
Huh?
I asked what he meant by the sentence I quoted. 
I meant re your first post in this thread…
Ah, OK.
For the viewers at home:
My impression and I’m pretty sure it’s accurate, is that the ‘spooky action at a distance’ of entangled particles is generally regarded as a de facto if not de jure violation of locality. Sure, you can’t actually use that violation to do anything interesting so meh, no one gets a case of bunched up panties, but even so, it is what it is.
If on some level we happen to be worried about Bell breathing down our necks in addition to Albert, then we can tell him to bugger off as well since we’ve duly gored ourselves on one of his dilemma’s horns.
IOW, all is right with the world, or at least as right as things get round these parts.
But heaven forbid that there should be no controversy, so I was just wondering, ‘well, what if we thought it would be more fun to impale ourselves on the other horn?’ Let’s say we wanted to hang on to the notion of locality and were willing to give up the idea of counterfactual definiteness. How would that play out? How would we still get something like the quantum eraser experiment to work in precisely the same way as it does now by throwing CFD to the wolves instead of locality?
Yeah, that’s why I specified “non-locality (or anything else equivalently weird)”. You have to do something weird, whether it be non-locality, or lack of definiteness, or “holism”, or whatever. There are many different choices one can make for the “something weird” that are all consistent with quantum mechanics.
That link seems riddled with (minor, but distracting) typos. A better link is here (though, warning, PDF, etc.)
Thanks for finding it!
Heh, we actually discussed the paper in our group when it came out (that was the reason the two-state vector formalism was on my mind when I wrote my first reply). Basically, the consensus was rather skeptical – it doesn’t seem all that obvious that they’re really saying anything that should be surprising. As an analogy, the weak measurements give you information about the probability distribution, while the outcomes of the subsequent strong measurements tell you what to condition that information on; that both are consistent is probably not too surprising. But to be honest, I’m not sure I have too firm a grasp on all this ‘weak measurement’-stuff…