Flatness is a property of perception not reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL77oOnrPzY

I'm just an engineer with a keen love for thought experiments so don't shoot me just for getting my terminology wrong and try to bear with  my unsophisticated terminology because there is some very interesting math and science behind what I have to say:

The probability of final states is an interesting computer science problem everyone needs to look a little closer into.  Turing thought about this a lot,  he just considered it a "stopping problem",  but it's better to think of it like a "known event" problem.  You can see just by trying to simulate any part of the universe on a computer that you can't predict the chances of a specific event occurring just by analyzing the code without running it.  You can be running Newtonian rigid-body physics and still not be able to predict the chance of a specific event (say getting a ball in a basket a certain number of times) and uncertainty itself emerges from it without any mathematical card-tricks involving infinite possibilities. (Note: code is just mathematical notation  and it's a superior type of mathematical notation to that god awful "Mathematic Lingua" style and "Feynman diagram" style of math and formulas that modern mathematicians use,  yuck, I digress).

I have a really good idea involving using Riemann geometry to analyze purely virtualized Turing machines to find the underlying geometrical "shape" of the universe beyond the bounds of spacetime.  A sort of generalized space even more abstract than space-time is this geometry that becomes apparent when you nest pure virtual machines inside each other and begin to simulate various aspects of the universe.  My guess is that perception is about modeling and modeling always forms a "flatness" that can be observed sequentially.  Prediction itself,  creating flat models of things that are not flat is the fly in the ointment.  It's just the human bias for "Banana in 3 minutes", "Banana in 5 minutes".  Distance/time are the same concept in this scenario as we all know.  Space is bound by that time vector (which is also not necessarily occupying a flat space either).

Consider a puddle of mud is Turing complete,  it contains all the rules to simulate the entire universe.  Humans just don't have a very good grasp on a 3D puddle of mud because it breaks this sense of readily perceivable flatness.  Bring the problem into 2D by confining the puddle then into 1D by connecting tubes and pinions and humans can make sense of it.  The water always had the Turing completeness,  it just took confining it to 2D and then to 1D sequences for us to be able to utilize it for something meaningful to our flat perception of time and space.  I think it's super important for humans to remember this concept.  Almost everything subsection of the universe is Turing complete from some perspective and Turing machines are a natural phenomenon that is pervasive across the entire known and unknown universe.  It wouldn't be hard to think that space-time is one of a number (possibly infinite) number of potential configurations that also create Turing complete results.

What is flat to us could be complete noise to a different turing machine working with a different subset of the universe.  That's where I bet general uncertainty comes from at all.

Humans love flatness because it lets us predict "banana in 1 minute",  "banana in 3 minutes", "banana 5 minutes",  but bananas don't actually grow as we get closer to them they just appear that way because the time to interaction has been predicted in some way.  That prediction is confined to the rules of our machine.  What is coherent to us is nonsense to most of the other "machines" that could exists.  The universe isn't some place made of spherical planets and things,  that's just our model of it as it relates to our survival.

Math/computers lay out sequences left-right so we can convert those sequences to a more meaningful flat and perfectly sequential "time" variable.  The universe itself is not necessarily modelled that way.  It's more likely that it's model is more aptly describe by a simplified Turing machine in my very pompous opinion.

Enjoy that one future.   I swear I'm not crazy! 😜