That's utter conjecture for the reason that I've underlined. You've also completely overlooked my first and third objections, regarding respectively the work of Bohm and Everett. That's false. Dark interference fringes of light are precisely neighborhoods that surround locations where the probability of observing a photon from the given source is in fact exactly equal to zero. That's an elementary result of quantum mechanics! As the works of Bohm and Everett both show, the issues that you're raising have no bearing on the question of whether the universe operates deterministically. But really, the question of whether the universe operates deterministically is irrelevant to the question of whether words like how and why are meaningful, as I'll explain below. If I'd said that "why" should have any association with morals, you could ask why I think it should have that association. In fact, though, what I've been saying is that "why" shouldn't be restricted to such an association. No, sorry. To the degree that science does anything at all, science answers both how and why. It does both. The assertion that phenomena must conform to any of our theories is one not proven by science; that assertion can never be proven. All science can do is provide an estimated confidence level that our theories agree with natural phenomena. That confidence level can theoretically approach 100% but will never actually equal 100%. In that sense, science can't even completely assure us that what it says with respect to how things are occurring is really how they are occurring. But, to the degree that our theoretical models are supported, how is a question that has an answer, and that answer is relative to the supported theory, and the same thing goes for why. "Why?" exists in the context of our supported models as meaning, "By what theoretical principles is the behavior predicted?" Both how and why are theoretical concepts. Additionally, just because some questions have answers in the context of our theories, it doesn't mean that all questions have answers. For example, quantum theory explains why interference patterns have the shapes that they do very nicely. What the theory doesn't do is answer why individual photons do what they do individually. That's beyond the scope of what the theory is capable of doing. That still doesn't mean that it doesn't offer an explanation for the shape of, say, interference patterns, in addition to describing what that shape is.