> You can't just go "QM has many surprising aspects" to "this other theory also has surprising aspects, it's probably true".

I didn't say it's probably true because of this argument, you're saying it's probably false because it seems magical, and that's the implication I'm disputing with that analogy.

I do think it's plausible that noise could be correlated for the reasons I specified, but not because of the "magical" analogy.