Ban short selling for a few days and watch the logical fallicies fly!
Regarding reductionism and quarks--
Recently physicists have become more interested in 'complexity'.
From Physics World survey Dec. 1999-
"Reductionism has failed in a grandiose manner," Itamar Procaccia
Giorgio Margaritondo, (the challenge for physics is) "... to develop a general theory of complex systems, in particular of living systems, without relying on the 'reductionist' approach, which is based on the illusion that complex systems can be explained based on an understanding of their more elementary components."
I mention this because sometimes people think that the reductionist appproach is argued on philosophic grounds only.
Before accepting this view of probability and the underlying assumptions about the nature of reality one should look at the experimental evidence.
Try Groeblacher, Paterek, et al arXiv.0704.2529 (Aug 6 2007)
These experiments test various assumptions regarding non=local realism and conclude=
"...giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned"
"Why do I think I have free will?" "Because I do," is a perfectly good answer (assuming free will). Trying to trace that back to anything is question begging.
"Why do I think I need to deny my free will?" Wouldn't I need to ask that question to be sure that my original answer isn't based on bias?