[ziofill]

That's only half of the argument though. The other half is how does entanglement correctly coordinate the probabilistic outcomes, when there's no causal order? (meaning, you can't assume there's a sort of signal that travels between them, because in a different reference frame the signal would have to travel back in time)

[mathemagics]

No, it’s the whole argument. You could imagine a probabilistic gate splitter that outputs two bits. Such that bits AB are either 01 or 10 with a probability distribution. That is you don’t know which of the two states you’re in, but you do know that bit A is always opposite of bit B. You can then take the bits as far apart as you want. And then measuring bit A will tell you the state of bit B. Nothing collapsed across interstellar space. Bit A and B were always in a certain state. We just don’t know which until we take a measurement. And since they’re correlated, we only need to measure one of them.

[ziofill]

Hehe I wish. You are forgetting that you can locally decide the measurement setting. For a setting the bits are (anti)correlated, for another one they are uncorrelated. If they always had a value, not only it wouldn’t work: even assigning a value per measurement setting wouldn’t work because it is what we call local realism, which is disproved by Bell’s theorem. Look up the GHZ game for an example of a system where you cannot assign pre-existing values consistently. (In the CHSH game, which is the equivalent of Bell’s theorem the explanation is a bit more subtle). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy