No, the worst part is this.

I for one, think that eliminating people from being policemen on the basis of their intellectual makeup is a very good idea.

However, I assume both quotes were simply ripped out of their context and thrown into the article to make it more interesting.

no u

The whole point of locality is to make sure that this isn't a problem, by asserting that information can't travel across spacelike intervals.

But, you know, there is such a thing as a timelike interval, that is, a pair of points such that in ANY frame, one is in the past of the other.

The existence of different reference frames does nothing to disprove determinism. Try to learn the physics before you start using it to make philosophical arguments. It makes it much more effective.

It is the theory that has been making steady progress since the introduction of quantum mechanics, using probabilistic interpretations. Progress like the development of quantum field theory, and the standard model.

Your complaints that that the consequences of probabilistic interpretations are absurd are like the complaints of opponents of relativity that relativity's consequences are absurd. The same sort of arguments that you're making now can be turned into arguments that we should be using an "ether-based" theory to explain electromagnetism. One which does all its work in some absolute reference frame, but makes the same predictions as relativity.

Yes, you can do it that way. But it's a pain in the ass, and the only benefit to it is that it pretends to satisfy the philosophical preconceptions of people who believe there's an absolute reference frame. It doesn't actually, it just pretends to. Same with Bohmian mechanics.

It is the nonprobabilistic interpretations that have run into a dead end, while the "a particle has no real position" crowd is happily making progress.

The way Conway and Kochen have defined "free will" is, loosely, any behavior that isn't determined by the past. So, no, there's no reason for a particle to be intelligent to "have free will". Plain old wavefunction collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation is a particle exhibiting free will.

Honestly, the actual result isn't particularly interesting, if you believe that human thought and behavior can theoretically be explained by traditional physical processes.

The interesting thing about the theorem is that the proof skips all that, and with a very simple setup, demonstrates that if humans can do something (pick which measurement to make) independently of the past, then elementary particles can too, without making any assumptions on what exactly makes humans act the way they do.

There is no such thing as a uniform distribution over the real numbers. Assuming that there is is bound to lead to contradictions.