And the NIST paper: “Quantum mechanics at its heart is a statistical theory. It cannot with certainty predict the outcome of all single events, but instead it predicts probabilities of outcomes. This probabilistic nature of quantum theory is at odds with the determinism inherent in Newtonian physics and relativity, where outcomes can be exactly predicted given sufficient knowledge of a system.”
Statistics is a simplification method and not a statement of fact. For example, say you had a complex system that only a few people in the world could break down into all its steps and infer deterministic results. The average person may not be able to do this, but they could still work on this project, by assuming it is a statistical system. It is a way to simplify the complex and still get good results.
Dice and cards, which are often used to help explain odds, are man made things. In other words, try to explain probability to a new person, without using any man made things like cards to dice. We can point to variations in natural things, but this is small compared to what natural things have in common; there is a higher percent of deterministic.
Dice obey statistics,because the six sides are equally weighed in terms of natural potentials; mass, charge, energy, etc., The difference has to do with superficial print patterns, which are a manmade and subjective elements. They are not a source of natural potential beyond the imaginations of humans.
Take a deck of cards and erase all the faces. Now every deal in this version of poker will be five of kind. What happened to the probability, when the manmade is gone? The only thing that has changed are the subjectivity pattern that weigh nothing in terms of the draw. None of the physical parameters have changed. It is an illusion that fools the best of them. Don't get me wrong, this is a useful tool, but a tool does not build the house by itself.
Let me give you a good practical example, in science. In Biology and Biochemistry, it has been known for 50 years or more that proteins fold with exact folds. When a protein is synthesized in the cell, it starts to pack and fold all the way to a final shape. Similar chemical composition proteins always fold the exact same way; perfect copies in 3-D space.
For several decades before this observation, and for many decades after this experimental observation, to the present, biology still assumes a statistical explanation for this deterministic event, where the probability equals 1.0. The statistical dogma is placed before common sense. It is still assumed and taught that thermal vibrations in the water, will cause random events, which result in average folds. This is not even real, in terms of experiment, but is still the convention in terms of explanation. This is true in all of science. This example was the easiest to see.
What it comes down to, is not many people can see the logic behind this deterministic protein observation. On the other hand thousands of workers can get you close to this result, if we accept statistics as a dogma of science. It may be a union thing. The bias of a random universe assumption, prevents reality from being explained almost to the point of censorship.
Dr. John Grant Patterson.
One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.
This divergence may seem to be off the topic of space, but until the statistical magic trick is seem through, it is hard to advance in a logical way. Everyone is expecting a jackpot in the science casino by pulling a lever.