> I was also extremely puzzled by the dismissal of probabilistic or statistical models as being fuzzy or something. Probability has always been the domain of p

> I was also extremely puzzled by the dismissal of probabilistic or statistical models as being fuzzy or something. Probability has always been the domain of possibility Perhaps you're just saying that probability is useful in some practical ways? Deutsch agrees (see video below). But if that's not all you're saying: If the "domain of possibility" (which I interpret to refer to quantum mechanics and thermodynamics) can be described without the whole concept of probability, why not eliminate it? Why eliminate it, though? As Deutsch says "We don't need a reason: Physics likes to do without things"? [1] You may say constructor theory adds new fundamental concepts. I don't know constructor theory so I don't know whether that's true. In cany case, what's not to like about probability concepts? In what way are they "fuzzy or something", as you put it? Deutsch points out here [2] (few minutes later in the same talk as the other link) a sense in which probability statements don't describe physical facts: for example "drawing to an inside straight is very risky" is logically consistent with any sequence of cards in a poker game. I think that's the "fuzziness" they want to eliminate from Physics. He then goes on to deal with some objections to that idea such as "in the long run, probability statements describe physical facts". If the game of Physics is describing physical reality, and we don't need that specific kind of fuzziness, success would seem to me an advance in Physics. [1] https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=13m12s https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=13m12s [2] https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=14m18s https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc&t=14m18s