A lot of people think quantum indeterminacy is an obstacle to the question of "objective reality", but frankly I just don't see it. I think it comes from an overinterpretation of classical physics, the idea of determinism. There was never any evidence that classical physics is completely deterministic, because classical physics does not use sufficient precision to address the issue. Furthermore, we have sensitivity to initial conditions, and the "butterfly effect" in weather forecasting. These are all perfectly classical-- why doesn't anyone seem to think these compromise the notion of "objective reality"? In fact there is no connection-- determinism messes with objective reality just as much as indeterminism does. If we say we can predict the future using some algorithm, how do we include our making of that prediction into the algorithm? This implies that science could never, in the context of an objective reality, provide a complete description of a truly deterministic universe-- so what sense does it make to try and use science to argue that ours is? The acceptance of indeterminacy is a sigh of relief for science, it means we don't have to base our concept of objective reality on a requirement for completeness. Many of the ancient philosophers already understood that, and quantum indeterminacy adds nothing fundamental to this state of affairs. I've never understood why so many claim otherwise.