I don't think you understood his description. Edsheppa's experiment is in essence identical to the two slit experiment. While I'd argue both experiments are formally deterministic, if you divide the system into quantum system and measuring apparatus, the result is as completely random as anything a physical system could provide; in fact, any algorithm that purported to predict the result to better than 50% accuracy would violate the uncertainty principle.
True enough. But the uncertainty principle does not make any assertions about the underlying nature of the process. It only asserts that it is unpredictable which is a relatively cheap assertion; all systems have this property in some context, and many processes will have this property in all contexts in this universe.
Violation of the uncertainty principle is not a theoretical problem IF we figure out how to peek inside the box, which may never be possible. It is a trivial exercise to duplicate the results of the two slit experiment in the abstract with a computer and an algorithm you could write on a cocktail napkin. I guess my only real point is that for every source of "randomness" there exists some cheap and tiny algorithm (several actually) that will generate every result we've every measured. The mathematical intractability of discerning even the most simple algorithms for generating "randomness" is problematic on many levels. Consequentially, I tend to be very cautious about the notion of randomness with respect to the randomness being impenetrable. Such assertions tend to reflect our ability to measure and compute more than anything.
But again, even if such phenomena were simple and deterministic, it does not mean they would ever look anything but "random" in all contexts inside this universe. Which for now, is good enough. :-)
...slightly confusing choice of words to this beer drinker tonight, given that there is a 50% chance for either slit.
But after reading it three times and having another swig I figured it out. :-)
Cheers!