> It doesn't matter whether quantum uncertainty is ontological or epistemological. What matters is that the outcomes of quantum measurements are fundamentally u

> It doesn't matter whether quantum uncertainty is ontological or epistemological. What matters is that the outcomes of quantum measurements are fundamentally unpredictable for the entity conducting the experiment. It doesn't matter whether the information generated by the experiment was pre-existing or somehow magically came into existence by wave function collapse or whatever, what matters is that the outcome is not predictable even in principle. And so it doesn't matter what mathematical model you put underneath this unpredictability. It can be axiomatic, it can be chaotic, or it can be a cosmic Turing machine computing the digits of pi. It doesn't matter because one of the things we cannot know, even in principle, is which of these hypotheses are correct. It's a non-scientific question. Thanks. That was actually really insightful. I never thought about it like that. It's beyond the scope of science and what models are for. We'd be switching purposes at that point. The tools only do what they are meant to: predict; it doesn't make sense to them for to do something else (unless we specify that new purpose), especially when we do so as if we're not.