Why Bell’s Inequality Does Not Apply to the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Why Bell’s Inequality Does Not Apply to the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS)

This post is my attempt to answer a question that keeps coming up whenever someone introduces a continuous-substrate ontology like the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS):

“But how does this deal with Bell test violations?”

The short answer is simple:

Bell’s inequality does not apply to AMS, because its assumptions do not match the ontology.

What follows is the longer, more careful explanation — not a mathematical sleight of hand, but a matter of basic logic.

What Bell’s Inequality Is Actually About

Bell’s inequality is not a general test of “reality.”
It is a mathematical result derived under very specific assumptions about how reality is structured.

Those assumptions are:

  1. Independent particles
    Physical systems are composed of separable objects that carry their own properties.

  2. Local causality
    Influences propagate through space over time; no instantaneous action at a distance.

  3. Measurement independence
    The choice of what to measure is statistically independent of the system being measured.

If all three assumptions hold simultaneously, then certain statistical correlations cannot exceed a fixed bound. Bell showed that mathematically.

Experiments violate that bound.

The standard response has been to abandon assumption (1) or (2), leading to claims like:

  • “Particles don’t have properties until measured,” or
  • “Reality is non-local,” or
  • “Information travels faster than light.”

AMS takes a different route.

The AMS Starting Point (Explicit and Non-Negotiable)

The AMS ontology rejects the starting assumptions outright.

Specifically:

  • Reality is not composed of independent particles.
  • Space is not an empty container.
  • Measurement is not an external, freely chosen input disconnected from the system.

Instead:

All physical phenomena are configurations and reconfigurations of a single, continuous substrate.

The system being measured, the measuring apparatus, the environment, and the experimenter are all local configurations of the same substrate.

There is no ontological separation to begin with.

Why Measurement Independence Fails in AMS (And Must)

Bell’s third assumption — “measurement independence” — is often misunderstood.

In plain English, it means:

The settings of the measuring device have nothing to do with the state of the system being measured.

This assumption only makes sense if:

  • systems are independent objects,
  • measurement devices are external inputs,
  • and the background is passive and empty.

None of that exists in AMS.

In AMS:

  • The measuring device is a structured region of the same substrate.
  • Its configuration arises from prior substrate history.
  • The system being measured arises from the same history.
  • Their correlations are pre-structured, not created at the moment of measurement.

This is not “conspiracy.”
It is not “superdeterminism.”
It is simply continuous ontology.

What Bell Test Violations Mean in AMS Terms

Bell violations do not imply:

  • faster-than-light influence,
  • indeterminacy of reality,
  • or spooky action at a distance.

They imply this:

The correlations were already present in the substrate geometry before separation.

Nothing is transmitted.
Nothing jumps.
Nothing is created by measurement.

Measurement reveals a constraint that already exists.

A useful metaphor (only a metaphor):

Cut a patterned sheet of fabric into two pieces.
Measure each piece separately.
The correlations you find do not require signals between them — they come from the pattern that existed before the cut.

AMS says reality works like that, but continuously.

Why This Is Not Superdeterminism

Superdeterminism keeps the particle ontology and adds an ad-hoc claim that everything is secretly correlated to save the math.

AMS does not do that.

AMS:

  • Rejects particles entirely.
  • Rejects empty space.
  • Rejects external measurement inputs.

Correlations are not “fine-tuned.”
They are structural.

That is a fundamentally different claim.

So Do We Need to “Satisfy” Bell?

No.

Bell’s inequality is a theorem about a world AMS explicitly denies exists.

Trying to “satisfy Bell” within AMS would be like trying to make fluid dynamics obey billiard-ball mechanics.

The correct response is not to force compatibility, but to say clearly:

This theorem does not apply, because its premises are false in this ontology.

That is not evasion.
That is intellectual hygiene.

What Would Be Required Going Forward

If AMS is to advance scientifically (not just philosophically), it must eventually:

  • Provide a mathematical description of substrate geometry.
  • Show how pre-structured constraints produce observed correlations.
  • Make new predictions where particle-based models fail.

But it does not need to rescue Bell’s assumptions.

Those assumptions are precisely what AMS was designed to replace.

Final Thought

Bell’s inequality exposed a contradiction — not in reality, but in a particular way of imagining it.

AMS takes that contradiction seriously and resolves it by changing the ontology, not by multiplying paradoxes.

That is not a shortcut.

It is the long way back to coherence.

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose 1. What This Guide Is This document is a companion guide to the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology . Its purpose is to: explain the ontology in plain but accurate language reduce cognitive load for readers encountering the ideas for the first time provide intuition, metaphors, and narrative scaffolding allow readers to grasp what the ontology is doing without needing to adopt its formal vocabulary immediately The guide is not the ontology itself. It does not replace formal definitions or axioms. It exists to make them understandable . 2. Intended Audience Primary Audience Readers with: a genuine interest in science and how the physical world works some familiarity with scientific ideas and language curiosity rather than professional obligation A good mental model is: A regular reader of a BBC science magazine, Scientific American–style articles, or long-form popular science writing. This reader: is not a practi...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more