Hidden invariable theory

I suppose this( Hidden variable theory ) is the place of contact that I feel is divergent. It really has to do with n-space as much as space and the implied order in the universe and its perspective. There is a great difference in opinion as to the meaning of these things and even Einstein was said to have stated the EPR paradox as a refutation that implied a proof, however the complete understanding seems to elude. It seems odd to me that such a thing should be so hotly contested. There is clearly some type of confusion in terms of common reasoning set involved here.

I think that perhaps they are failing to account for something which is not measurable in the theorem. When you speak of infinite and infinitesimal in terms of math, then you have a basis. In the real world, implementation of infinity is absurd. Many concepts that exist in a mathematical or logical system are not guaranteed to be reproducible in the universe. If one assumes as a basis: "All things are possible.", it can be argued that one of those possibilities is: "Not all things are possible.". It follows that statements about possibility itself are subject to logical limitations. If I were to break the universe into sub-sets where each of these things were true, then it would no longer be "universal".

I keep a few things that I accept as absolute and among them are the fact that if you define something(A), then: A=A and A!=A is false. I also accept that mv is constant. I accept that NAND is the basis of all logic and that this derives from XOR , which I the universal operator.

I suppose that this would likely be considered gobbeley goop by most, but how is it that in all of history we have not established a method of logic whereby I can have the same information as any other person and develop the same conclusion. This itself seems to defy logic. As a programmer, if I were told that every machine used a different method to add two numbers and got a different product, I would scream.