Since Bell's Theorem is actually a non-locality proof and

>>9137663
Even if you generously accept the suspect claim non-locality has been proven, it still wouldn't make classical physics wrong, it would just make classical physics specific to a particular context of non-quantum scale phenomena.

>>9137669
>it would just make classical physics specific to a particular context of non-quantum scale phenomena.

Has it not already been shown to be the case that classical physics is only an approximation, given the advent of general and special relativity? What does that have to do with whether the standard model of particle physics rests on faulty assumptions?

>>9137663
Causality is a lie.

>>9137678
You don't need to call it "faulty," you just need to be clear that what it works on is a specific context of non-quantum scale phenomena. There might not actually be anything we can ever come up with that won't turn out to be limited to a specific context in retrospect.