determinism

I don't understand how anyone could arrive at a conclusion that true randomness exists anywhere. Or rather, I do understand it, but I think it is rather stupid. I guess a common misconception is that QM proves determinism is impossible, but that's not true at all. The only thing it proves is that some things are beyond our ability to measure; the underlying mechanism can still be fully pre-determined (in fact, this is the only logically consistent position).

Wow! I mean...I just....wow!

First off, determinism isn't something that humans can experience. We can conceive of what it might be, but the conception is far removed from the reality. The facts are simple; 1) humans have only so-much accumulated knowledge which actually hinders any possibility of perceiving anything determinately. At best, a educated-guess would suffice. That's why free-will can exist at a human level, but determinism is something that only a being, far above and removed from what it means to be human, can experience.

Now, I realize this sounds like I'm putting down philosophers that hold determinism in high regard, but I have to exclaim, "Are they paying attention to the human condition and taking IT into account in order to reach this conclusion of the possibility of determinism perceivable by humans?" You can't! It's far beyond human capacity to perceive determinism directly. If anything, it's an illusion distracting you from what is human. If I had to put it theologically, it's a God-trait, not a human trait. No manner of science will ever penetrate the veil of determinism just as no human being will ever be immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.
So long as science is a construct used to reveal a happening in nature, so too is the language a construct upon which science is built. These constructs blind us from what is really there by cookie-cutting (categorizing) the true potentialities of existence as human beings see fit. It's not only a painful fact, but what makes it harder to accept is that some constructs need to be re-assessed and changed in order to account for future findings. It's a sweeping-shot-in-the-dark method to finding the truth. But so long as science cookie-cuts what it perceives as reality it will miss the point of it altogether.

You should know that "to err is human" and that is no exclusion in science. In order to exclude human err you must account for it. How many scientists account for their own human conditions at the time of scientific discoveries? You'll find a glaring discrepancy.

Until human beings find a way to look beyond what they know, they'll never understand what they see.