Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, but part of the issue is that we can make accurate predictions of pretty much everything we can readily observe today. Actually there are a lot of predictions we can’t make today. Stuff that are very important 1) Why do most young people do fine with COVID-19 but some apparently healthy people do not? 2) How exactly do proteins fold 3) Will it rain tomorrow at location x at time x 4) when will my pet tiger de…
None of the things you listed depend on explanations outside of the realm of physics that we already understand. Theoretically with a simulator powerful enough and using the principles we already know, all of the items you listed could be solved.
We've spent the last century arguing about what this means for physics, and we still have no idea - even though quantum events can have macroscopic consequences. (To give a contrived example - a decaying atom may damage some human DNA and cause cancer in a historically important individual who dies decades earlier than they would have otherwise, changing the course of history.)
It's more accurate to say that we can model a small selection of mathematically 'pure" system types that are neither random nor emergent, on timescales that are comprehensible to us.