> Non-determinism is inherently going to be at the bottom of the "layers" of physics, if it exists.
That's exactly the thing: the bottom layer (QM) is purely deterministic. It's not even chaotic: the wave function evolves through purely linear transformations. It's much more exact than Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics from this point of view. You can actually predict the exact value of the wave function through arbitrarily many transformations, even if you don't have a very exact initial state.
However, when we try to actually use this wavefunction to measure something, we get some weird non-determinism in the middle of the model. To accept it as an actual element of reality, you have to accept that reality is not reducible: you can't explain the behavior of, say, a ball by looking at the behavior of atoms composing the ball. Essentially, you could say that the atoms behave deterministically, but the ball behaves non-deterministically, according to something like an ontological version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
This is clearly logically inconsistent, so the actual CI treats the wavefunction as not being an element of reality - but then, we can't say anything about how atoms actually behave, we can only say how they behave in relation to classical objects.
That's exactly the thing: the bottom layer (QM) is purely deterministic. It's not even chaotic: the wave function evolves through purely linear transformations. It's much more exact than Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics from this point of view. You can actually predict the exact value of the wave function through arbitrarily many transformations, even if you don't have a very exact initial state.
However, when we try to actually use this wavefunction to measure something, we get some weird non-determinism in the middle of the model. To accept it as an actual element of reality, you have to accept that reality is not reducible: you can't explain the behavior of, say, a ball by looking at the behavior of atoms composing the ball. Essentially, you could say that the atoms behave deterministically, but the ball behaves non-deterministically, according to something like an ontological version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
This is clearly logically inconsistent, so the actual CI treats the wavefunction as not being an element of reality - but then, we can't say anything about how atoms actually behave, we can only say how they behave in relation to classical objects.