Heh. I'm not a physicist, but if my understanding of quantum theory is at all correct it is a statistical rather than deterministic discipline. In principle, then, the model could be refined to arbitrary levels of precision, down to precisely predicting the probability of individual quantum events within a system. In that case it falls squarely into the magisterium of science, since it can make testable, repeatable predictions about events, even if they are probabilistic predictions.

My argument is that there are elements of the human experience which, even in theory, are not reducible to testable predictions. As a corollary, the /fact/ that in practice there are still many such elements which are not well understood scientifically (and if you disagree with this, I would invite you to find any psychological study of the past fifty years that has been verified to even two sigma of confidence in one or more follow up studies) means that ANY statement about the relationship between science and understanding the human experience is ultimately metaphysical speculation, including this one.