Your claim that this is some sort of nature balancing act we simply can not even speculate on and that view started my arguing against the simplification as you presented it. There is nothing wrong with your original example you just draw a conclusion to far in assuming it is a nature balance.
Are you saying that nature doesn't have a balancing act going on? That things happen just because they happen and there doesn't have to be any way to enforce parity? You seem to be claiming that the math is what forces the universe to act the way it does. Math doesn't force anything. Math is how we work with nature, not how nature works. It just happens, fortunately, that math can be used to describe the way nature works. Remember that math is really just a fancy way to count. Bell's inequality is a mathematical way to work with entanglement that helps us understand how it works. It doesn't have anything to do with why it works.
I think our problem here is that you just keep saying I am wrong, but you don't really provide an alternative explanation. So until somebody comes up with a different way of looking at it, other than the math says it, I will just keep on assuming that I am probably some where close to correct.
Bill
