Quote Originally Posted by Robcore View Post
I just don't get how they can say that there's objective uncertainty, and simultaneously say that there's statistical likelihoods without at least leaning toward accepting the inference that a statistical pattern indicates some as yet not-understood cause.
Well yeah, of course they want to find an undiscovered cause. Einstein famously hated the idea of inherent uncertainty, saying "God does not play dice". It's just that they can't find any causes that would make sense that wouldn't also violate fundamental parts of physics, like the principle of locality.

Of course everything is filtered via our perception, but surely you believe that there is an objective world, nevertheless?
Suppose I'm decoding a cypher...no amount of uncertainty on my side will change the fact of what the code is concealing. The answer is objective...even though I must subjectively discover it.
In physics that idea is referred to as realism - the idea that the world exists independently of the human mind, and values exist before they are measured.

Bell's theorem, which I'll admit I don't understand fully, supposedly disproves either locality or realism. It has to do with quantum entanglement, which is where particles become entangled so that they always affect each other's state, even when separated at large distances. When one is measured, the state of the other can be simultaneously known. This would seem to violate special relativity which says that causality is limited to the speed of light. That is, one thing can't affect another instantaneously at a distance because then information is travelling faster than the speed of light. I'm probably making some mistakes explaining this but I think that's the general idea.