Will ..... I have been trying to grasp your 'increment' page .... I need more time on this .... will have more to say (ask) on this later.
This is not your fault ... but I find as I get older my brain seems to get 'locked' in to one approach so that when I am shown a new approach ... its a physical wrench to force myself to try to understand it..... give me a bit of time.
As to the 'Ante up' or 'lay down your hand' .... This is easy and I will also get back to this. I am at work now and those around me think I am programming controllers ....
But Willie ..... If the Maths, as I explained predicts a random outcome of 55% or greater for EPR, and 50% give or take a poofteenth for QM ........ And all the physical experiments (which can carry no bias) spectacularly confirm with ever greater precision the 50% outcome....
Then you really do need to consider this, if it is crucial to your 'Increment' Theory. Otherwise the pain will be great. I think it was Fermi, or Pauli who said "Many beautiful and
logical theories have been destroyed by an ugly mathematical fact".
I haven't progressed enough on your theory yet to understand if you rely on EPR. Dave would be the better one to advise you in this area. Especially on the two percentages I have quoted.
Stay in touch .... its nice to be able to debate where your most recent post is given some consideration before the reply button is immediately hit in order to open fire as quickly as possible.
cheers mate ... will get back to you on the 'Ante-up' ... greg