Who throws the dice for you?

[Heywood]

No, I'm saying that anyone saying that X can never be explained by Y, without knowing what the explanation for X actually is, is committing an argument from ignorance. "I don't know how Y would explain this, therefore it can't," is the subtext of that.

Why does not knowing the explanation of X preclude you from eliminating Y as a possibility? I don't know who killed Bob but I know it wasn't Alice because she was sleeping with me at the time of the murder. You're saying it doesn't matter that I know Alice didn't commit the murder...as long as I don't know who did then I must consider the possibility that it was Alice. That's ridiculous. Bell's Theorem tells us that the cause of quantum randomness is not the existence of hidden local physical variables. So while I don't know what the cause of Quantum randomness is....I can eliminate hidden local physical variables from consideration.

Since you're saying that quantum mechanics and Bell's theorem state that a given thing can never be explained, and my contention is that you've either misunderstood the actual science, or you're overselling the conclusions it came to to reach your desired conclusion. No scientist worth their salt, leastways where accepted theories are concerned, would make a statement like you're characterizing it.

If you want to make the argument I misunderstood the science then learn the science and make it. You cannot just claim I misunderstood the science and expect that to be a persuasive counter argument if you are unable to show how I misunderstood the science. You're making a blind assertion which is a waste of time.

And if you're actually saying that these two things could be wrong, then you haven't really got much of an argument there. You literally would be saying "if I'm right, then I'm right!"

Negative....its more along the lines of if your premises are true then your conclusion is true.