The empirical rejection of Bells' inequalities by the Aspect experiment of 1982 and later,improved,versions of the experiment (ovelooking the criticisms regarding their validity) count as a falsification of the assumptions made in the premises,therefore one of the premises is not true.The usual interpretation is that the premise postulating that 'local hidden variables exist' is false.Seen from a strictly epistemological point of view I would argue this is the maximum we can reject,indeed there is no proof yet that non local hidden variables cannot exist or that a theory using them is incompatible with the results of the mathematical formalism of QM.Quantum realism is still a feasible possibility.However this is only one of the assumptions in the premises.Copenhagenists for example reject altoghether the premise that hidden variables as whole exist,totally renouncing at the principle of realism.This is acceptable from a logical standpoint but not from an experimental one,as I argued above.Another assumption used in the case of Bells' theorem is that formal logic is a valid way of reasoning even when dealing with quantum phenomena.Have we the right to put it in doubt?I don't think we have this right since it proved very successful before in all domains of science (the hypothetical-deductive method used even in the case of Bell's theorem being at the base of the scientific method),basically we have no reason to think it does not hold in this case.
Finally what proves the result of Aspect experiments outside the interpretation that local hidden variables are incompatible with predictions of standard QM?Aspect himself accept the existence of nonlocality though it does not also imply the possibility of sending information at superluminal velocities.Gribbin talks of 'particles that were once together in an interaction remain in some sense parts of a single system which responds together to further interactions'.Whatever the cause if there is one,the nonlocality is 'an embarassing fact' (as Penrose put it in one of his books) for it seems to imply also that all particles are somehow connected.Gribbin for example even note that 'If everything that ever interacted in the Big Bang maintains its connection with everything it interacted with, then every particle in every star and galaxy that we can see "knows" about the existence of every other particle'.As far as I know this view is not sustained by physicists,there is no good reason now to think that all particles are nonlocally connected,the main view being that interactions with the environment or our measurements cause the collapse of the wavefunction quantum,entanglement being lost.Moreover,as far as I know,there are some tentative explanations (based on the fact that quantum particles are indistinguishable) using quantum field theory showing how nonlocality is possible without implying any superluminal motion (or the intervention of consciousnesses).I will not attempt to citicise the argumentation used (one objection being that it is good to explain the phenomenon for small scales equivalent with a wavelength of a quantum particle),maybe it is true in absolute and we cannot put it in evidence...Finally it is true that there are no good reasons now to think that the holistic view is the unique,inevitable logically and experimentally,alternative.My only observation is that the holistic view is a very serious philosophical proposal,it has a strong logical base in Bohm's Interpretation,which is still a viable alternative.I don't think it would be rational to minimize it.But of course from a strictly epistemological point of view there is no good reason now to claim that human mind is vital for the collapse of the wavefunction or that the strange connection at distance proves the existence of a 'single whole' (or an universal consciousness).
