>Oh I see so you deny the idea that carrying out the same quantum experiment could result in a very unlikely outcome.

No. Did you read what you quoted? Specifically "(assuming n is large enough)". I am talking about the aggregate result of multiple experiments. Perhaps " if you can run an experiment that produces an unexpected histogram" should say "run a set of experiments" or something like that. Although this should be clear because you cannot make a histogram with one sample.

>c

?

>I did not. I said science is based on religious beliefs about the underlying nature of reality. Namely that it is constant and follows laws.

You said "science is ultimately a religious enterprise." Its hard to read that any other way. But even giving you the benefit of the doubt, it just shows why I took issue with your initial comment. What you have said here vs. the initial comment is drastically different, even if you really meant the same thing (which I am not fully convinced of).

>Well science originally was a belief that the universe was like an automaton, following predictable laws deterministically.

What do you mean by "science was a belief?" That was a conclusion many early physicists made, but that doesn't say anything about science itself. It is not either accurate to say that science is a belief that there is quantum randomness. That is a scientific theory or you can perhaps call it a scientific belief, but that belief is not science itslef.

>which is what the comment I replied to insinuated.

It didn't. It is referring to effective determinism, ie. that classical phenomena are very weakly affect by quantum randomness, such that we can rely on it to replicate those effects.

>You seem to have correctly given up on this, but still express a belief

I never held this position and have tried to explain that to you twice already:
'You can just add "extreme likelihood of following this equation" to every classical equation.'

'What I really meant was experiments that do not follow the laws we have so far discovered about nature. In the classical realm, that means experiments that do not produce the same results. In the quantum world, it means a histogram that is not in line with the expected probability (assuming n is large enough). Nobody had mentioned quantum randomness at that point so there was no need to mention it. '

>It really depends on what you mean by 'operates'. Potassium/Sodium ions are fundamental to brain workings.

It doesn't. Sodium potassium gates are well understood and do not rely on quantum randomness.

>You literally said the laws of physics don't change.

That is because I am operating withing the world of positive statements beyond axioms. Within your proposed world of however I would clarify that my promise to go to get something to eat is only in the event that the laws of physics don't change (which we can accept as possible since we cannot accept anything as true at all within your world. In fact I suppose even that statement allowed for to much as it implied that I think the laws of physics currently exist at all for that to change).

>However, you constantly make the positive statement that the universe does follow laws. Again, a religious statement.

It is not a certain statement, just a likely one.

>But if I did that you would still be thinking your scientific belief system is based on reason, instead of religious.

Under your definition of religious, reason and religion are not mutually exclusive. I actually challenge you to define reason here.

>That's correct. Positive statements require a belief system that will inevitably contain axiomatic laws.

But you said that we "take an irreligious look at things and try to keep focus on just what we observe." Yet that itself requires a positive statement that my observations are real. And if we take an irreligious look at things under your definition then we will arrive at zero conclusions.

Reminder to my point from above: "Please cite one physics journal where this claim [that scientists now claim that while the universe is not fully predictable, its macro phenomena can be described with certainty] is made. No physicist will say that quantum randomness cannot possibly have an effect on the macro scale. The claim is that it is extremely unlikely to do so, just like it is extremely unlikely that my hot cup of water will get hotter in a cold room."