The essence of the answer is that correlation doesn't imply causation (true). The essence of the comment is that the correlation in a quantum case may be stron

The essence of the answer is that correlation doesn't imply causation (true). The essence of the comment is that the correlation in a quantum case may be stronger than in a classical case such as the case with gloves (also true). The comment doesn't invalidate the answer unless you think it does imply causation (non-locality). It just says that the answer is not the whole truth: that would be the complete mathematical description of QT with corresponding procedures to connect the math with observations. The glove analogy obviously has its limits. It doesn't make it wrong. Otherwise, the accepted quantum theory is also wrong because it doesn't describe all known phenomena (consider gravity). > "Particles behave like wave until observed" Consider photon: it is neither wave nor particle in a classical sense. The math is such that in some cases it is easier to describe it as wave (interference pattern), in others—as particle (photoelectric effect). It is surprising that the familiar concepts from a human scale (such as wave, particle) are useful in such a wide range of physical phenomena. Though only because they are more familiar does not make them more real than e.g., the concepts produced by the equations of the quantum theory. All models are wrong—some are useful. (In a sense that there is no territory under a map, only more complete or different maps)