[mburbank]

" The point is that it remains a viable theory for showing how determinism could work with quantum mechanics."

A mathematical formula which contains an unknown which would solve the equation is not a viable theory, is is a problem.

The hidden variable is "A number so that we could distinguish when an electron is a wave and when it is a particle".

Burbank's theory of faster than light travel, ie. FTL = CX, or Faster Than Light travel equals the Speed of Light times an unknown number which when multiplied by the speed of light results in a number greater than the speed of light is not a theory, it is a problem. Theories can at some future point or at VERY least in thought expiriments be tested. You can test E=MC2.


"How can quantum events that are observed be compared to quantum events that are not observed for such a conclusion to be drawn?"

To date you cannot observe any quantum events, only their after effects. No one has ever seen an atom, let alone an electron or a quark. You theorize their existance based on their observable effects, like Brownian motion.

"Show me the evidence"
I'm arguing for unpredictability, not predictability. There is no burden of proof at all. You CAN'T prove a negative. Determinism depends utterly on a predicatble, mechanical universe.

It's easy to see why determinism appeals to you, as you are the philisophical equivalent of a clockwork dog.