No, that wasn't my intention. Although I find both HUP and entanglements as thought provoking, and so similar in 'intent' to me, as they both question 'reality'. And I guess Einstein saw it that way too. I think that what Einstein didn't agree on was the assumption that as causality disappear we replace it with statistics and probabilities, in some way defining that as 'real' as the causality chains we observe macroscopically.

Albert Einstein. “Physics and Reality.” Journal of the Franklin Institute 221 (1936), 349-82.

"Consider a mechanical system consisting of two partial systems A and B which interact with each other only during a limited time. Let the Ψ function before their interaction be given. Then the Schrödinger equation will furnish the Ψ function after the interaction has taken place. Let us now determine the physical state of the partial system A through a measurement which is as complete as possible. Then quantum mechanics allows us to determine the Ψ function of the partial system B from the measurements made, and from the Ψ function of the total system.

This determination, however, gives a result which depends upon which of the state variables of A have been measured (for instance, coordinates or momenta). Since there can be only one physical state of B after the interaction, which state cannot reasonably be considered to depend upon the kinds of measurements I carry out on the system A separated from B, it is thus shown that the Ψ function is not unambiguously correlated with the physical state. This correlation of several Ψ functions to the same physical state of system B shows again that the Ψ function cannot be interpreted as a (complete) description of a physical state (of an individual system)."

And

"Now it appears to me that one may speak of the real state of the partial system S2. To begin with, before performing the measurement on S_{1}, we know even less of this real state than we know of a system described by the Ψ-function. But on one assumption we should, in my opinion, unconditionally hold fast: The real situation (state) of system S_{2} must be independent of what is done with system S_{1}, which is spatially separated from the former. According to the type of measurement I perform on S_{1}, I get, however, a very different Ψ_{2} for the second partial system. (Ψ_{2}, Ψ'_{2}, . . .) But now the real state of S_{2} must be independent of what happens to S_{1}. Thus, different Ψ-functions can be found (depending on the choice of the measurement on S_{1}) for the same real state of S_{2}.

(One can only avoid this conclusion either by assuming that the measurement on S_{1} changes (telepathically) the real state of S_{2}, or by generally denying independent real states to things which are spatially separated from one another. Both alternatives appear to me entirely unacceptable.)

If now the physicists A and B accept this reasoning as sound, then B will have to give up his position that the Ψ-function is a complete description of a real situation. For in this case it would be impossible that two different types of Ψ-functions could be correlated with the same situation (of S_{2})."

(Corrected the text slightly, missed a 'sub')