So, if at the "core" of material reality, the world is chaotic and irrational, how are you sure that the keystrokes that comprise your answers will get to me and that they will be ordered, coherent, function in this Newtonian illusion of a world that assumes uniform cause and effect? Forgive me if that is not what you are saying. My physics was just what I needed to get thru Pchem. However, if the QM world is really one of uncaused activity, then by definition the rest of the structure of reality must be like the illusory world which "appears" to be designed (the favorite whipping boy of the anti-ID crowd). How do you escape the charge that QM physicists are just insisting that the appearance of a world that incorporates causality is "appearance" only? Although my question is a challenge, to be sure, it has more question than challenge in it. I am genuinely confused by what seems to be the assertion of two radical different dimensions of reality coexisting with different rules in each. While that is theoretically possible, it makes more sense to me to assert:
"QM seems to say this about the behavior and nature of matter/energy on this level, but we believe that the laws of behavior are universal and that our understanding of how QM complies with these laws are, at present deficient"
than
"We believe there are two sets of rules for behavior of ......."(crap, I don't even know what to call "it" that is behaving!)"or maybe there is one set of rules that incorporates 'uncaused' behavior of matter/energy."
The former seems far more reasonable to me, a mere layman.
Please insert "newtonian" into the sentence before "laws of behavior" to qualify the third sentence from the end. Otherwise, the two say the same thing.
"Laws" of physics are just concise descriptions of what we see. Based on the recent postings of Tortoise it seems reasonable to believe there are hidden variables in QM and that we might never be able to discern them.
In other words, indeterminancy could be false, but it could be impossible to detect the falseness.
In either scenerio your concerns are groundless. It is the assumption of randomness and indeterminancy at the quantum level that makes such deterministic things as computers, DVDs and GPS locaters possible.
The assumption that all things have causes is based on experience. It holds true at the ordinary level of perception, but fails at the quantum level. So the shoe is on the other foot. Our very best and most careful observations contradict the assumption of causation. We cannot reasonably assert that causation is axiomatic.