#4 isnt about the accuracy of the fine structure constant. #4 is about limiting the discussion to QM as opposed to dealing the claim that QM is incomplete - th

#4 isnt about the accuracy of the fine structure constant. #4 is about limiting the discussion to QM as opposed to dealing the claim that QM is incomplete - that maybe the only reason it gives us probabilities for events is because its incomplete, and maybe theres a deeper theory that would supersede QM; this line of reasoning would not be productive to scott's initial question, which is focused on the nature of QM, given that it is true in a fundamental way.