determinism

I don't understand how anyone could arrive at a conclusion that true randomness exists anywhere. Or rather, I do understand it, but I think it is rather stupid. I guess a common misconception is that QM proves determinism is impossible, but that's not true at all. The only thing it proves is that some things are beyond our ability to measure; the underlying mechanism can still be fully pre-determined (in fact, this is the only logically consistent position).

>>11,19
Educamate yourselves:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/142461/files/198009299.pdf
It is important to note that to the limited degree to which determinism plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but inferred.  What is held sacred is the principle of "local causality" - or "no action at a distance."  Of course, mere correlation between distant events does not by itself imply action at a distance, but only correlation between the signals reaching the two places.  These signals, in the idealized example of Bohm, must be sufficient to determine whether the particles go up or down.  For any residual undeterminism could only spoil the perfect correlation.

It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a presupposition of the analysis.  There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always the sacred principle.  The quotability of his famous "God does not play dice" has not helped in this respect.  Among those who had great difficulty in seeing Einstein's position was Born.  Pauli tried to help him in a letter of 1954: