> Not to be "that guy"
Now why don't I believe that? ;-)
> * General relativity did not come from "grasping the mathematics" of special relativity.
I wrote that he had to "grasp enough of the mathematics to finally formulate the General Theory of Relativity". Human language is neat in the way it allows for ambiguities, but if you understood "the mathematics" in that sentence to be a reference to SR, then that is because it is what you read into it. I was referring to the time it took for Einstein to fully understand/appreciate the work of Minkowski.
> * Local hidden variables are not "likely wrong", they are provably impossible
...but they are also not the only formulation of a hidden variables-type solution, as I pointed out follow-on comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7249468
> * Entanglement does not break the principle of causality. "Spooky action at a distance" is not an "effect" in a well-defined physical sense. It cannot be used to send information or cause things to happen.
Funny, I thought I wrote: "While this is not, strictly speaking, a violation of General Relativity as no information is exchanged." Oh wait, I did.
> * All of this could be--and was--understood without the EPR paper. Relativity was the most important thing since Newton. EPR was minor in comparison.
Yes, and Einstein also wasn't the only physicist to come across the field equations in GR. He just happened to be the only one to appreciate their full impact. No scientific discovery stands in isolation, so it's really not worth debating this point much. I have noticed, however, that many in the QM community seem to look down on EPR and much of Einstein's other work in QM, probably (not entirely without justification) because of the rather dim view Einstein held on much of their work.
> * I have no idea what connection you're trying to draw between sentient life and QM.
Not me. You should go talk to John Archibald Wheeler about the Participatory Anthropic Principle.