I didn’t understand. Mechanics appears deterministic, so there’s no choice there. I understand that randomness is not choice, but if we observe randomness, that means we don’t know the reason why a certain result comes out. Why say that it is essential randomness?
As for rolling a die, I mean that it expresses the free choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, not of the die.
Thanks

And it falls equally on all sides, just like the Rabbi explained about statistics in human beings even though they have choice (at the beginning of the book).

In mechanics too, it’s possible that there is choice, except that in this case the body always chooses to move according to Newton’s laws. That’s just what it feels like doing.

Yes, but in mechanics I always see the same result, whereas here I see different results for the same data. I don’t know the reason why it comes out this way rather than another way. That is, if this is essential randomness, then it basically happens “without a reason.” Why not say that there is a guiding hand directing the results? In other words, that human will / God directs the result within the range of possibilities (in mechanics there aren’t these possibilities). There’s something here that I’m not managing to understand.

You see the same result because the distribution dictates a single result. With a die you see several results because the distribution is uniform. There is no fundamental difference. Think about a die whose one side is much heavier than all the others. It will always fall on that side, simply because that’s a different distribution.

It could be that he means that there are things in quantum mechanics that are not deterministic, and he is projecting that onto choice.
Just as in a single observation one cannot predict the behavior of a particular particle, even though if you look probabilistically at a certain sample you know the distribution. But when you look at the individual case, there is already uncertainty here.