>>12559190Einsteinian relativity postulates that relative time and space, constructed with the Lorentz transformation, are "true space" and "true time" (ontological space and time), and that therefore there is no absolute space and time. Lorentz took relative space and time as epistemic, i.e. what is observed, not what is. This changes not its mathematics, only its interpretation.
By redefining "time", Einsteinian relativity also redefines causality: nonlocal implies noncausal, as faster-than-light effects would be observed before their cause in the local frame of reference, which is what exists and matters.
Since "we know" (postulate) that relativity is "true" in the Einsteinian interpretation of it, i.e. we require by postulate that reality be local, QM has to be either noncausal (which isn't even worth considering), nondeterministic or nonrealistic:
Either nondeterminism is fundamental, and no knowledge of all the causes may allow us to correctly predict the effect of a cause (ontological nondeterminism).
Or nonrealism is fundamental, and physical properties are undetermined until you observe it.
Both are scientific thought stoppers, as they leave you with open questions with no leads where to seek and explanation for, even vouching for themselves that these questions are in part fundamentally unanswerable.
So, we are left to doubt whether reality is indeterministically determined with no possible explanation, or whether reality is indetermined until observed, and what does that mean, which is a false dilemma stemming from dogmatic ontological reading of Einsteinian relativity.
All the pseudoscientific garbage about the holographic principle, string theory, and most (but not all) quantum garbage stem from trying to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics with the Einsteinian ontology, forcing more and more abstract mathematical entities onto the ontology of the real world.
