Much hubub is made about how uncomfortable everyone feels with quantum theory. So much hubub that there are now a plethora of different “interpretations” which are all supposed to make you feel less uncomfortable with quantum theory. There are basically two things which make quantum theory interesting: contextuality and nonlocality. The first of these is really not to disturbing. Sure, philosophically, having a realistic theory with really hidden variables (meaning you’ll never get access to them) is disturbing (why the extra structure?) but its not something which is completely incompatable with our everyday conception of reality. We operate fine when we interact with our PC’s without knowing the exact details of the currents and voltages inside of these machines (this being an analogy and not a precise comparison: of course we could go in an measure the currents and voltages and therefore understand why the hell the blue screen of death just popped up on the monitor.) Nonlocality is disturbing in a different way. It says that there is no way we can have realistic descriptions which are always local (but will be hidden, of course, as a consequence of the contextuality of quantum theory.)
OK, so here is my point. The issue of nonlocality arises due to the combination of relativity and quantum theory. It is perfectly reasonable to consider all sorts of notions of locality and then do quantum theory on them. Our notions of locality arise due to a physical theory: relativity. So perhaps the way out of the nonlocality mess is not via some hand-wavy philosophical smoothing over of emotions, but instead is due to actual real hard core physics. What physical theories can we derive which produce quantum theory? Can physics save us from the quantum quagmire?