There is no set of local hidden variables that can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. So (subject to the assumptions of Bell's Theorem) there's no information to know, whether for an observer or for God.

To see why that's the case, you'll need to work through Bell's Theorem. I attempt an explanation here, if that helps. — Andrew M

:up: Perhaps I read too much into the socks analogy. Thanks!

The idea is similar to ER=EPR where the two entangled particles are connected via a wormhole. — Andrew M

Sean Carroll discusses his team's work on this at his blog: — Andrew M

ER=EPR is way above my paygrade, but I think I get the gist of what Carroll et al. are trying to do:

Divide Hilbert space up into pieces — technically, factors that we multiply together to make the whole space. Use quantum information — in particular, the amount of entanglement between different parts of the state, as measured by the mutual information — to define a “distance” between them. Parts that are highly entangled are considered to be nearby, while unentangled parts are far away. — Space emerging from quantum mechanics - Sean Carroll

From this the usual spacial geometry is supposed to emerge at larger scales. But he notes that

It might seem like entangled particles can be as far apart as you like, but the contribution of particles to the overall entanglement is almost completely negligible — it’s the quantum vacuum itself that carries almost all of the entanglement, and that’s how we derive our geometry.

My naive idea of how to reconcile Einstein's physical intuitions about distant objects with quantum entanglement was to propose that entangled systems can be interpreted as presenting different aspects of the same "object" that just happens to be spread out in space. Perhaps a more promising approach towards reconciling physical intuitions (aka metaphysics) with quantum mechanics is to acknowledge that these intuitions are only valid at some scales, but might be emergent at others.

Whenever you have to enclose 'object' in scare quotes you can be sure you're talking metaphysics.

Perhaps a non-Euclidean metric designed for entanglement, a novel metric space, could be a key to describing if not explaining the phenomenon. Maybe this has already been done. Just a passing thought.

Yeah, but it couldn't be just the regular space(time) metric, because that already accounts for distance and gravity - not something you would want to screw with in order to account for something else. Perhaps something on top of that? I don't know.

By what mechanism are two masses, separated in space by a long distance, somehow magically attracted to each other? — fishfry

They find each other sexy. See? Not tricky at all.

They find each other sexy. See? Not tricky at all. — Book273

Now THAT's action at a distance!