>>10928723our conceptions of nature are only stochastic because we've found no better way than describing quantum phenomena in that manner
"this probability a, that probability b" is not a description of the law governing particle interactions (or local quantum field irregularities interacting, whatever floats your boat), but rather a description of the expected outcomes of those interactions
it's the same as if you were trying to explain things falling towards the earth at different speeds without having discovered or quantified mass, or its relationship with object size through density - you'd take a set of things with roughly the same qualities - oranges, for example, drop them towards the ground from up high repeatedly, and describe the likelihood that an orange would hit the ground within a certain time frame
it's about the only way you could do it without being able to measure mass, or density, or size, or all of those together - but it doesn't provide an exhaustive description on how "falling" works and what determines the rate of acceleration towards terminal velocity
that's the situation we're in with the quantum world
