> Yet even that doesn't 100% jive with physics because quantum mechanics are not deterministic
QM is a branch of physics, with some theories having multiple interpretations, some being deterministic and some non-deterministic. By this I mean, quite literally there exists deterministic and non-deterministic models of the same phenomenon, which both work in accurately describing said phenomenon.
As so, it hasn't been proven whether QM is deterministic or non-deterministic.
Regardless, in cases where it skews non-deterministic - how can we be certain that the exhibited randomness isn't just simply because we aren't accounting for all conditions there is to know about the phenomenon (hidden variables)?
Before shooting that down, Bell even admitted his own theorem does not rule out determinism - as determinism which evades it - he calls "superdeterminism".
QM is a branch of physics, with some theories having multiple interpretations, some being deterministic and some non-deterministic. By this I mean, quite literally there exists deterministic and non-deterministic models of the same phenomenon, which both work in accurately describing said phenomenon.
As so, it hasn't been proven whether QM is deterministic or non-deterministic.
Regardless, in cases where it skews non-deterministic - how can we be certain that the exhibited randomness isn't just simply because we aren't accounting for all conditions there is to know about the phenomenon (hidden variables)?
Before shooting that down, Bell even admitted his own theorem does not rule out determinism - as determinism which evades it - he calls "superdeterminism".