# Knowledge of Quantum Hidden Variables Enables Backwards-In-Time Signaling
## 3 Ways to Bypass the Argument?  
Here we consider two ways in which our argument can be apparently bypassed: either by introducing additional hidden variables, or by introducing a time dependence of the hidden variables.  
The first possible objection is that one could argue that the hidden variable for the joint measurements are unrelated to the hidden variables of the local measurements. Namely that the hidden variable of the product \(\sigma_{1x}\sigma_{2x}\) is different from the product of the hidden variables \(\sigma_{1x}\cdot\sigma_{2x}\), but fundamentally, not only statistically (at the level of expectation values) [25] and not necessarily within a pre- and post-selected ensemble [26; 27]. From the abstract point of view, this may be an acceptable objection, but it leads to an implausible ontology. Indeed, the observables connected to the product \(\sigma_{1x}\otimes\sigma_{2x}\) and the single values \(\sigma_{1x}\otimes\mathds{1}_{2}\) and \(\mathds{1}_{1}\otimes\sigma_{2x}\) all commute, namely they can be determined at the same time.  
Clearly when this is done, the results _must_ agree in any sensible ontology. Indeed, consider a scenario where two people may possess either a yellow or a red apple, and suppose they both have a yellow apple (namely the \"value\" of their apple is \(+1\)). Yet, if one assumes that the value of the product is different from the product of the values, they may conclude that their apples have different color (namely the product of their \"values\" is \(-1\)), a nonsensical conclusion. The fact that the measurements in Equations (2) and (3) are incompatible with the local measurements is irrelevant to this argument, since it refers to the ontological \"true\" values, not to the way these are measured (namely the context, which is determined only in the future).  
A second possible objection is that one may postulate that the measurement itself is changing the hidden variables, namely that the measurements of Equations (2) and (3) are not constrained by the hidden values of the spins. This indeed removes the possibility of using [PERSON]'s choice of context to communicate back in time. However, it also changes the meaning of hidden variables. If the measurements can change the hidden values, then the hidden values do not pre-determine the measurement outcomes, namely the hidden variables do not encode the \"true\" value of the property uncovered by the measurement. Then they would be completely useless, and one could just as well claim that there is _no_ true value and the measurement outcome is \"created\" at the time of the measurement, as in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In other words, if one claims that the choice of the context may change the values of the hidden variables _at the time of the choice_, one cannot describe situations (such as the ones of our protocol) where the context is deliberately left undetermined until the values of the hidden variables have been used. This changes the meaning of hidden variables.  
In conclusion, to bypass our argument either one needs to introduce a nonsensical ontology where two identical apples are different, or one must change the meaning of hidden variables.