Well, that seems vague, but here are some of the things about quantum physics that people find odd:

1) We intuitively think of the past as certain and the future as unwritten. You seem to be suggesting that both are written. But quantum physics says that both are unwritten. So it's exactly the opposite. Just as there are many possible futures from this point, there are also many pasts leading to this point, and that's why you get interference patterns and so forth.

So, it's not that there is one past and many futures, nor is it the case that there is one past and one future. There are many pasts and many futures, and they are all mathematically, measurably, equally real. (But not all equally probable)

2) Probabilities in quantum physics have a phase angle, which is why they can sum or they can cancel out.

If you mean why is quantum mechanics probabilistic? That's because it's the best model we have to handle many of the momentary variations in physical systems. But I'll say that determinism could still be true even if we can't make predictions. But equally, I believe that determinism can be false even if the observable universe seems well ordered. Chaos doesn't just mean random things happening without a cause that could be found. It just means that not all chains of causality can link backwards and forwards perfectly in time (i.e. some chains of causality maybe emergent at best).

It's not a predictive solution. It could very well be revealed to be true by some god type creature, but it defies the fundamentals of conducting the scientific method.

Why does it defy the fundamentals of the scientific method? I don't see what fundamentally changed just because that search is deterministic. Given all finite theories are recursively enumerable, and we clearly have enough degrees of freedom to enumerate all such theories, what's the problem exactly?

The scientific method is hypothesis testing. You must be able to make a hypothesis that is testable. What method are we using to make testable hypotheses?

Abductive reasoning, which is compatible with determinism. Even if we had to resort to blind trial and error after enumerating all possible theories, science would still work, just less efficiently. Like I said, I don't see the problem.

I think you might be joking. I assert that we cannot in fact enumerate all possible theories, even if you could write down a representation, they must be enumerated in meatspace to conduct an actual comparison.

Of course we can enumerate all possible theories, in principle. This is a trivial corollary of the fact that we can enumerate all Turing machines.

It's not practical but that's not the point. The point is that if we are free enough to enumerate all possible theories in a deterministic universe, then science can be conducted. Clearly we can enumerate all possible theories, therefore even if our universe is deterministic, we can do science.

Sorry but that sounds like the writing of someone who has never conducted an experiment in quantum physics. Obviously we aren’t just spitballing, there’s hard evidence for every equation.