I probably should have clarified that my analogy was coming from a perspective of super-deterministic[1] compatibilism[2]. In the absence of knowing the truth,

I probably should have clarified that my analogy was coming from a perspective of super-deterministic[1] compatibilism[2]. In the absence of knowing the truth, I feel that solution is the best model / explanation. It strips away the 'spookiness' and many other problems, though it admittedly has its own issues with testability and proof. I do not believe in the idea that particles can super-luminally affect each other during the moment of observation. I think that is a failing of our measurement systems and ability to describe what's going on. Just as we often fail to accurately convey the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment [3]. But for the record, if a different perspective were definitively proven to be true, I would of course switch to it, as any scientist should. But given that there are multiple avenues of investigation open, I'm exploring super-deterministic compatibilism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism [3] http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2524 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2524