>>10815883>might this stuff about probability and disagreement on what observation means indicate a lack of understanding of some deeper part of quantum mechanics? somethin that might make this part of it somewhat "simpler" to predict? or at least remove the element of randomness/probability
Maybe. I think it's not so much that the explanations are necessarily complicated or complex, but rather that we just don't have the information/knowledge/etc to know whether or not said explanations are correct.
For example, in the 'consciousness causes collapse' interpretation of quantum mechanics, a wavefunction (probability) collapses from a superposition into a definite/real state when a conscious being observes it. That explanation in itself is very simple, clear, and straightforward, but it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove, because if conscious observation causes a wavefunction to collapse, then attempting to measure something in a superposition would necessarily make it collapse, which means observing it while in a superposition would be impossible.
Of course, the 'consciousness causes collapse' is just one example of a theory/possible explanation.>remove the element of randomness/probability
I think it's too soon to say whether or not randomness truly exists in quantum mechanics, but it certainly seems likely.
You may find this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics