</snark> Look, of course the water example is well-known, because it's obvious. Do you want to, you know, address it in some way? Or perhaps you could allow that the existence of conjugate variables doesn't require nondeterminism?
Ah, and here I thought you actually asked someone you knew. Because how you approach things when you're thinking philosophically and when you're teaching an intro course on nuts-and-bolts QM are two rather different things. Feynman was no dummy, and I don't know his position on this specific question, but dimes to donuts if he actively thought about MW and came to disagree with it, then he's aware it [edited to clarify: his position] involves something other than pure QFT being the law.Well, the mythical persons in question are the aforementioned LS, and I've mentioned Feynman.
As for Streater, it's interesting to note what's at the top of the page: "This page contains some remarks about research topics in physics which seem to me not to be suitable for students."
one of which is MW. Well, yeah. It's metaphysics at this point. All MW does is give you license to not have to worry about the mythical wave function collapse mechanism. That... isn't a fruitful line of research.
If I understand him right, it's not that MW is wrong, it's that it's useless for practical work, which is true except for the theory of measurement itself. For example,
"There are no theorems, conjectures, experimental predictions or results of any sort, other than those of Hilbert space." (emphasis added). In other words, MW is just QM, no frills. QM is so firmly established that MW doesn't need any further support.
For example, if you interpret this as a statement of what is true rather than practical, it comes out sounding rather funny - "The idea that the full details of the observer should be included in the Hilbert space is in violation of the scientific ethos."
ORLY? Y U no want ToE to explain your B-ing?
But of course if (as I suspect he does) he's just talking about what you ought to be doing on a day to day basis, it's not silly at all. Trying to model the observer every time you make a measurement would be massive overkill.
On the other hand, it seems he thinks that QM doesn't apply to the universe as a whole. If so, you have just provided an example of the sort of person who can reasonably hold that the universe is not in fact deterministic while accepting that QM is.