You suffer from the delusion that your opinion and the opinion of Heisenberg have equal weight. From the most objective measurement, they do not.
===
The only argument I’m making is that he _likely_ had a deeper comprehension of the natural sciences than you or I.
Given equal experience and depth of knowledge in the same field, your opinions could have equal weight.
==
I stay agnostic for several reasons. One of which is that I never had any animosity towards the various religions I explored. I’m agnostic simply because I don’t know. I find uncertainty to be a broader and more stable foundation than certainty of the knowns. The more knowns I gather, the more uncertains appear.
Will there come a point where we’ll have it all buttoned together nice and neat as a species?
Perhaps. But I doubt I’ll live to see it. In the late 19th century, a growing hubris of “We have it all figured out now, except for these few little things”, then along comes Einstein. THEN along comes dozens of other revolutionary concepts.
I see no reason that there would not be a continuation of revolutionary concepts in the upcoming future.
===
Perhaps. But considering he seemed to have a footing of awe and mystery, if you don’t have a similar sense of awe and mystery towards things (the difference being, you don’t ascribe to a God construct), I don’t think you’ll get terribly far for it’s likely he would put you in the category of “you haven’t dug deep enough yet”.
===
there’s been some attempts to remove a “before Time” – most recently Stephen Hawking attempted a mathematical model to try to show a potential Universe where Time was part of the processes themselves.
But it was less than convincing. I was disappointed in him for trying, to be honest. Even if you were to create a mathematically self-generating, self-sustaining theoretical Universe, wouldn’t that simply be replacing God with mathematics? In short, God under another name?
==
It is. Cult of Pythagoras lives on. It’s useful mind you: mathematics works unreasonably well with Physics, yet it’s not a perfect marriage. It’s why observation and experimentation are so critical in the Sciences: otherwise we end up with multiple Universes and chasing snake’s tails eating themselves.
===
It’s the map/territory thing. We can create a vague sketch of the Universe utilizing mathematics as if a pencil and paper, but it still won’t be the reality of the Universe.
Still, the math is useful. But the complexity of the Universe is far greater than mathematics can handle at present, except in a sketchy form.
I’ll be impressed when they can tell me what I’ll be thinking next Tuesday at 08:32:23.
’til then, it’s fascinating sketches on the backs of sophisticated napkins (computers), that are useful descriptions and practical for building some stuff, but I think we’re VERY VERY far away from having it all figured out.
===
Indeed. I don’t get woo-ish about uncertainty. Also, they’ve found some ways around it, such as statistical modeling based upon thousands of repeated trials, obtaining simultaneous position and speed that way. It’s not perfect of course, but it’s getting closer.
===
Did he make a strong logical case? No.
However, was his case unreasonable? No.
==