archetypal fool

I also believe it's a philosophical question, and as such, there is no true "answer" outside of the scientific establishment. Many things about quantum physics cause a lot of people to cringe because it's so...odd. To truly start to understand, you have to start a philosophical battle with yourself about how you think the universe works, and it's quite weird really, because who though philosophy would extend itself into science? Or, for that matter, the universe as a whole? I certainly didn't, and my friends recommended me to some books, and I'll tell you, for a solid month after reading, I was torn in half, because so many elements which we perceive and believe in are just that: our perceptions. That's where philosophy kicks in, and it goes something like this: Does the universe mold itself to our perception, or does it mold our perception? We are stuck in a universe which we can't change, and thus we have a reference point unlike that of any other entity. We are the products of our elementary particle, which are themselves made up of who-the-hell knows what, dancing a pointless dance in quantum space. We don't know exactly what theses things are doing, but whatever it is, it results in us, by some random chance, but we'll never see the randomness of the dance. The summation of these hopelessly random events leads to our "reality", and this reality makes sense to us; that's why, for example, when most people think about en electron, they see a little ball floating around an atom, because their relating our reality into some other scale; but because our reality makes sense, when we try to superimpose our sense and logic onto things which have none, then how can we describe this separate reality? It may not make sense to us, but its nonsense is what creates our sense (I know that sounded ridiculous), so any attempt to make sense of it will only lead to more nonsense. For example, consider a chemical reaction of two reactants (C1 and C2). If you mix them, they randomly assemble in pairs. There has to be randomness because consider the case where you have one C1 molecules and 2 C2 molecules. If the C2s are equidistant to the C1 and both move with the same momentum, which will couple with the C1? From our point of view, it doesn't matter; in fact, we can't even see it happen. But regardless of this, there is randomness in the elements, and the result of this randomness is the illusion of determinism (i.e, I added C1 and C2 together, and C3 was formed). In this case, C3 is our reality, which seems, in our point of view, determined, is in fact a simplified representation of the randomness of the universe.

Science shows that matter pops in and out of existence all the time, all throughout the universe, though you and I would never experience this, because when we think matter, we think physical, tangible entities, like cars and balls and shoes. How many times has a sports car just appeared in your driveway? Or when was the last time your shoe disappeared from your foot as you put it on? Yet experiments have shown that there is some force, even in a complete vacuum, and this force is generated by particles entering and exiting our universe constantly. Sounds ludicrous to us, but it's the way things probably work*.

There's an actual calculable probability that you will go to sleep tonight and wake up the tomorrow on Mars, but it's so small that it's almost entirely negligible. But that doesn't mean the possibility doesn't exist. And if it were suddenly to happen, where's the causation, as required by a deterministic universe?

I know I must sound like a broken record now, but the proof is in the earlier experiment I mentioned. The scientific method breaks down somewhat when dealing with the subatomic, as is the case with the double-slit experiment; and like roach said, if the fundamental elements of nature are random, then so are their derivatives.

*It's also thought that these forces might be relative forces created by dark matter/energy which we can't see or find or understand. Either way, it doesn't make any sense, but it doesn't have to, for the same reason I stated above.