observed. The results of experiments that close this loophole by observing a higher fraction of the pairs should be available within the next several years. Nearly all physicists believe that the results of these experiments will be precisely as predicted by quantum mechanics and thus violate Bell’s inequality. Henceforth, we assume Bell’s inequality is violated and that we have therefore ruled out local hidden variables. We now return to the question of whether this rules out local reality. As noted above, experiments have been conducted such that the times of the two measurements were sufficiently close and the separation of the particles sufficiently great that even a signal traveling at the speed of light could not inform one particle of the result of the other’s spin measurement. Since physical signals cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, the effect of the measurement of the first particle on the outcome of the second cannot be explained by any physical mechanism. Therefore ruling out local hidden variable would also effectively rule out local reality. Since the hypothesis of local reality is false, we conclude that the alternative is true and angle at which particle 1 is measured has a causal effect on the spin of particle 2. Note, even under the alternative, we have assumed that Y 1 ( x 1 , x 2 ) exists for all ( x 1 , x 2 ). Thus our assumption of ’reality’ remains; the hypothesis that ”reality” is local has been rejected. However, quantum mechanics is generally assumed to be irreducibly stochastic. We could have accommodated this assumption by positing stochastic counterfactuals p 1 ( x 1 , x 2 ) and p 2 ( x 1 , x 2 ) defined for all ( x 1 , x 2 ) with the measured spin Y$_{i}$ ( x 1 , x 2 ) being the realization of a Bernoulli random with success probability p$_{i}$ ( x 1 , x 2 ). That is, we could assume that the elements of reality are the counterfactual probabilities p$_{i}$ ( x 1 , x 2 ). Our hypothesis of stochastic locality is then p 1 ( x 1 , x 2 ) = p 1 ( x 1 ) and p 2 ( x 1 , x 2 ) = p 2 ( x 2 ). The proof given above, again combined with the experimental results, can be used to reject this hypothesis by using a coupling argument as in VanderWeele and Robins (2011). A perhaps more radical point of view is that is often attributed to the Copenhagen school: the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics successfully predicts the results of 7