I would say that the randomness lies in the specific outcome of the collapse, rather than in the observation that causes the collapse, but otherwise that's all correct.
Once measured, the nonlocality rules (part of the totality of physical law) specify what the state of its photon twin is, wherever that twin might be in the universe.
I can't argue with any of that
That "instruction set" -- physical laws -- is analogous to the Aristotelian First Cause.
I'm not as up on Aristotle as I should be, but my suspicion is that his understanding of time and causality is not fully modern. According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events, and according to relativity, time itself can behave counterintuitively when sharply curved.
That's a fact! -- but how could it be, Physicist? Still, he got so much right. Something in his discussion of limit seems analogous to QM's "observer." I'm mulling it over. Maybe I'm mistaken about this, but it's something to think about.
Thanks for your book recommendation. I'll check it out. Also thanks for all your help to me in working through my understanding of QM. Which I'm still working on. :^)
And thanks for writing!