That's why I regret how much I have pursued my curiousity about Human/artificial AI, evolutionary biology, the nature of religion, etc.
Sometimes, it's better to be a bit innocent and ignorant (also respectful and nice, otherwise the world can get into trouble with violent religious zealots) -- no one gets psychically hurt that way.
In essence, we can't see the quantum interaction of particles and their superpositions, we can only see the average produced by a large number of these actions and reactions. This gives a small, but nonetheless interesting, hole from which randomness can leak into the apparent deterministic systems we see.
I recently walked a similar road when thinking about human behavior as a product of genetics and outside inputs. For me, the angst was the view that "free will" might be fictional, and I had built a lot of my personal ethics onto that pillar. But it was curiosity that led me out of that nihilistic moment when I thought about the loophole above.
Can you elaborate?
www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html
All of those images are generated with very simple deterministic rules but they are still sublime.
I dare say if you really think you found solid, objective answers for, uhm, anything, I encourage you to look even closer and/or consider the bigger picture... at least for me, it always ends up being a huge mystery again :)
Hint: the core of the problem (and core of many, if not most, philosopical problems) is "What is the definition of consciousness?"
"Why do I feel like my hand touches something even though, on an atomic level, I'm sure it's still separated by space?"
and
"What if none of this was real?"
have led my friends and family to assume I've gone crazy.
The worst part? For a long time I believed them, and I'm sure part of me still does..
But with relation to the article, it occurs to me that these questions began in my mind around age 5 or 6. I think this is pretty common, too, but kids are told to focus on "important" things.