The Almighty - "Now I believe with this comment, you are not trying to prove your "truism" theory (which i hope is not abandoned,yet)"

Listen, no one likes to be spammed with quotes from sources, so I tried to present the arguement in my own words. What did I get for my trouble? Your accusation that this is somehow my theory. This theory is over 80 years old, and it taught in the physics departments at universities all around the world (which is exactly where I learned it). Perhaps I did a poor job explaining it so here comes the pain:

IBM (from the documenation for their qcomputer) - "The qubit does not always have to be in just |0> or |1> or but can be in any quantum state, denoted |Ψ> , which can be any superposition |Ψ> = α|0> + β|1>, of the basis vectors. The superposition quantities α and β are complex numbers..."

IBM - "A point of fascination is that a quantum measurement takes any superposition state of the qubit, and projects it to either the state |0> or the state |1> with a probability determined from the parameters of the superposition."

IBM - "The qubit should spend half its time in the |0> state and the other half in the |1> state. Before the measurement forced it to choose, t̲h̲e̲ ̲q̲u̲b̲i̲t̲ ̲w̲a̲s̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲b̲o̲t̲h̲ ̲s̲t̲a̲t̲e̲s̲ ̲a̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲c̲e̲."

IBM - "If you run this circuit you will find that, like before, the outcomes are equal. D̲i̲f̲f̲e̲r̲e̲n̲t̲ ̲s̲t̲a̲t̲e̲s̲ ̲g̲i̲v̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲a̲m̲e̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲c̲o̲m̲e̲s̲!"

IBM - "This is not a limitation of the measurement, but a̲ ̲f̲u̲n̲d̲a̲m̲e̲n̲t̲a̲l̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲e̲q̲u̲e̲n̲c̲e̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲u̲n̲c̲e̲r̲t̲a̲i̲n̲t̲y̲ ̲p̲r̲i̲n̲c̲i̲p̲l̲e̲."

IBM - "One of the infamous counterintuitive ideas of quantum mechanics is that two systems that appear too far apart to influence each other can nevertheless behave in ways that, though individually random, are t̲o̲o̲ ̲s̲t̲r̲o̲n̲g̲l̲y̲ ̲c̲o̲r̲r̲e̲l̲a̲t̲e̲d̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲y̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲o̲r̲y̲."

IBM - "Bell showed that if these measurements are chosen correctly for a given entangled state, s̲t̲a̲t̲i̲s̲t̲i̲c̲s̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲e̲x̲p̲l̲a̲i̲n̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲y̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲h̲i̲d̲d̲e̲n̲ ̲v̲a̲r̲i̲a̲b̲l̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲o̲r̲y̲, and that there must be correlations that are b̲e̲y̲o̲n̲d̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲."

IBM - "GHZ states demonstrate an even stronger violation of local reality than Bell's inequality. Instead of a probabilistic violation of an inequality, the GHZ states lead to a deterministic violation of an equality."

IBM - "So, as Mermin pointed out, the GHZ test described above c̲o̲n̲t̲r̲a̲d̲i̲c̲t̲s̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲p̲o̲s̲s̲i̲b̲i̲l̲i̲t̲y̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲p̲h̲y̲s̲i̲c̲s̲ ̲b̲e̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲r̲e̲a̲l̲i̲t̲y̲!"

IBM - "the GHZ test can r̲u̲l̲e̲ ̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲l̲o̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲r̲e̲a̲l̲i̲t̲y̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲p̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲w̲i̲t̲h̲ ̲c̲e̲r̲t̲a̲i̲n̲t̲y̲ after a single run of the experiment"

IBM - "The ability of quantum computers to exist in entangled states is responsible for much of their extra computing power, as well as many other feats of quantum information processing that t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲p̲e̲r̲f̲o̲r̲m̲e̲d̲,̲ ̲o̲r̲ ̲e̲v̲e̲n̲ ̲d̲e̲s̲c̲r̲i̲b̲e̲d̲,̲ ̲c̲l̲a̲s̲s̲i̲c̲a̲l̲l̲y̲."

IBM - "This implies that a quantum system in a perfectly definite state can be certain under one measurement and c̲o̲m̲p̲l̲e̲t̲e̲l̲y̲ ̲r̲a̲n̲d̲o̲m̲ under another."

---------------------
As I've told you from the start, this idea of yours is done (classical mechanics/clockwork universe), it has been done for more than 80 years. It blew my mind too when I learned it. I still find myself falling back on it, but it is wrong. QM might someday be shown to be wrong, but it won't be replaced with classical mechanics, cuz that dog don't hunt.

Perhaps you haven't yet read my reply to your post #144. 1) The "cause" is the relative difference between the orientation of the particle's magnetic moment and the orientation of the detector's magnetic field. No further understanding is needed. Indeed, the "cause" doesn't even have to be exact since a tiny difference between the relative angles can only produce a tiny change in the observed probabilities. You still have to explain how almost-similar "causes" (which according to determinism should lead to a strong statistical preference for one path) can lead to the 50% mix for the case of 90 degrees. 2) Don't understand your question. The relative alignment of the angle of magnetic moment for a particle with the magnetic field of the detector (actually a filter, but it could also be a detector if we added a detection component) determines its chances of passing--according to the formula given by Nyarlathotep. Why it does that is irrelevant to our discussion. 3) Define "reason" as you mean it. Are we talking metaphysics here? Is it a code word for a deterministic cause? If the latter, then we have already ruled it out. There is no cause in that sense when we are dealing with these quantum results. 4) My post addresses your concern here as far as detected paths are concerned. How do you deal with the superpositional state which allows a mix of possibilities? That was Nyarlathotep's point.

By the way, we are still waiting for your "proof" against true randomness. At least pull some evidence out of the silk hat!