confess the deep regret I feel that Bell cannot respond to this paper is sometimes assuaged by a sense of relief.

Locality and Local Causality
============================

In his seminal 1964 paper, John Bell expressed locality as the requirement

> that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past. \[2004, p. 14\]

This seems to require that the result of a measurement would have been the same, no matter what operations had been performed on such a distant system. But suppose the result of a measurement were the outcome of an indeterministic process. Then the result of the measurement might have been different even if exactly the same operations (if any) had been performed on that distant system. So can no indeterministic theory satisfy the locality requirement? Bell felt no need to address that awkward question in his 1964 paper, since he took the EPR argument to establish that any additional variables needed to restore locality and causality would have to determine a unique result of a measurement. Indeterminism was not an option:

> Since we can predict in advance the result of measuring any 