Also, as scientists we call things a paradox at the drop of a hat more because ew like the word than anything else. Unfortunately, this does not sit well upon the ears eegits and they tend to make a mountain out of even the most dwindlesome molehills. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen “paradox” is actually in no way paradoxical. And quantum uncertainty (another one guaranteed to get a fool fantasising), arises from the fact that in order to measure the position of the point of action of a quantum (more acurately where it is from one moment to the next) we have to take the average of multiple readings to get anywhere close to being accurate (the more readings on this one measurement we do, the more we pin down it’s position). However, it’s position is changing all the time and so is it’s momentum which also takes a lot of repeats (of an entirely different experiment) to pin it down with any kind of accuracy. Hence the more accurately you know it’s positiion, the less you know about it’s momentum and where it’s going next, and conversely, the better you know it’s momentum and where it’s going to, the less well you know where it is. These difficulties of measurement are partly to be expected in things that are osccilating wavelike things that are billions of times smaller than atoms. Putting it in such mundane killjoy terms as I just did, they cease to sound as exciting as saying things like “they appear to have sentient qualities, but unfortunately they are nowhere near that exciting. Very useful for modelling stuff though, but boring. I once set a super-computer on an density functional theory minimisation calculation and it took five weeks to come to a final answer, which I then stuck in as a very small section of a paper in a journal. And that kind of timespan is not unusual.