Locality has come upon The Reference Frame again. I was looking for some old comment by the author that said in the most clear way possible that nature is local and there is no action at a distance but still could not find it or forgot how he said it and so maybe I saw it but did not recognize it.
At any rate, the knowledge of Nature is unavoidably subjective
"Nature is local, at least whenever a quantum field theory is a sufficiently good description. String theory is local in some respects, subtly nonlocal in others. But no nonlocality is ever needed to explain the results of EPR-like experiments. The experiments testing entanglement have nothing to do with nonlocality."
What I think he meant by this comment was that Field Theory is local but it gets that locality after there is a propagator. Kind of like a Hamiltonian description of a system. The fact that you describe it as a system does not mean non locality.
I was looking for some comment by Lubos that said this idea that nature is radically local but I still can't find it. [That is nature is subjective and local. There is no objective state of affairs until you make a measurement]
[Maybe it was this blog entry] I wish I had made a link to it when I first saw it.
Locality correct. Realism incorrect.