You missed the point of their comment.

The responders' point was that Quantum Mechanics is a different framework for modeling physical phenomena which takes a probabilistic framework, and so if fluid were to be modeled in a similar framework, you could work more naturally with these "vanishingly unlikely" events.

Quantum Mechanics is entirely deterministic and linear.

(It only become non-deterministic, when you muck around with collapse of the wave function.)

Yes well the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely accepted interpretation of Quantum mechanics, so it's not crazy incorrect to equate the two

Right, smooth vector fields aren’t actually physically realizable.

Navier Stokes is probably Turing Complete.

Probably, yes. But the gymnastics required to make it Turing complete are unlikely to be in the regime that describes real fluids.

In the sixties some people experimented with fluidic logic gates.

Those probably relied on friction?

No one said it does. But given that statistics based on complex probabilities are effective in one ___domain, maybe they're worth investigating in another.