That's seems like a somewhat odd position to take since BK's argument relies so much on QM. In QM, nature at its lowest level is either actually random or effectively random in that it is beyond our ability to precisely predict. The randomness of classical probability derives from this lower level.Because, quite simply, there is no such thing as "random chance" under idealism (and I am not even sure there is under any other ontology).
The authors of the paper I’m talking about today think that we should stop thinking of this kind of thing as simply classical. By this, they mean that they think all classical probability is fundamentally rooted in the randomness of quantum mechanics.
The importance of this is that flipping a coin is an example of quantum mechanical probability. That’s right – the most plainly obvious example of classical probability is actually not classical at all! The authors argue that this is the case for all applications of classical probability.
https://stoove.wordpress.com/2013/01/15 ... ignorance/