Fully agreed. This, however, rests on the assumption that there is a 'holy grail' in physics (aka a theory of everything). It's a matter of taste, but I don't like that idea that there is a theory of everything because it doesn't seem reasonable that every last bit of our universe is explainable by a single theory. Why would that be? Seems like a conspiracy, if this was the case. To me, it's rather quite comforting to assume that there is something (be it the position and momentum of an electron) which we won't ever be able to understand because it just seams realistic. If this wasn't the case and we could show that there is a theory of everything I would immediately start my quest to find Morpheus to ask him to give me the right pill to wake up.

I think this is not true for every experiment. For example if you measure the polarization of a photon it will have the same polarization in any subsequent experiment, no matter how hard you try to reduce complexity.

Also, my comment was rather directed at the fact that any experiment has a unique outcome. In that sense we we can’t have perfect control over an experiment, since at least time must have passed between subsequent measurements, such that the experimental conditions are different.

> the set of observations it offers is vast

Actually, in an experiment there is always only one observation at a time. That we group multiple observations together is kind of arbitrary and relies on the hope that the experimental conditions are the same and therefore one experiment is analogous to the next.

Because, a line doesn’t have any holes and a fraction just gives you a point, such that no matter how close you are to another number there will always be gap.