Many phenomena exhibit probabilistic behaviours (e.g., election, human height), but this does not imply that someone is playing dice. Quantum uncertainty merely suggests that there is a limit in term of what we can measure. For those variables or their resolutions that we cannot measure, we can never be sure about the true casual relations among these variables, so we may HAVE TO (though not ideal) model many causal relations probabilistically (similar to playing a dice under some specific conditions). However, the sciences were never satisfied by probabilistic causal relations. Otherwise Newtonâ€™s laws would be some probabilistic causal relations. NASA would have to employ some fortune-tellers.

It is correct to recognise our limitation in modelling many phenomena using quantitative laws. It is wrong to generalise this to a statement that causal relations are merely some probabilities.

## "God does not play dice": why is this wrong?

Many phenomena exhibit probabilistic behaviours (e.g., election, human height), but this does not imply that someone is playing dice. Quantum uncertainty merely suggests that there is a limit in term of what we can measure. For those variables or their resolutions that we cannot measure, we can never be sure about the true casual relations among these variables, so we may HAVE TO (though not ideal) model many causal relations probabilistically (similar to playing a dice under some specific conditions). However, the sciences were never satisfied by probabilistic causal relations. Otherwise Newtonâ€™s laws would be some probabilistic causal relations. NASA would have to employ some fortune-tellers.

It is correct to recognise our limitation in modelling many phenomena using quantitative laws. It is wrong to generalise this to a statement that causal relations are merely some probabilities.

MC, Oxon