Lots of things are true but not real.
For example, if a village has 100 families with 150 children, there are one and a half children per family. That’s true. But that doesn’t mean that there’s such a thing as a half child.
Unfortunately, especially when it comes to physics, many people don’t appreciate the difference between true and real.
So they learn, for example, that a quantum-mechanical description of the world is non deterministic and assume that that necessarily means that the world is non deterministic. It doesn’t. The non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics may be like the fractional child — a useful part of a useful model that doesn’t directly represent anything real.
A clear example comes from coordinate systems. A point in space can be described by Cartesian coordinates $(x,y,z)$, but that doesn’t mean that there’s any reality to $x$, $y$, or $z$. The same point can be described by polar coordinates $(\rho,\theta,\phi)$, but, again, it’s not as though a point actually has a radius and two angles. Both of these systems are true. Neither one is real.
Similarly, from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle we know that $\Delta x \Delta p \geq {\hbar}/{2}$. Or, more popularly, the more you know about a particle’s position, you less you know about its momentum, and vice versa. But, again, we don’t know that particles have momentum at all, any more than they have an $x$-value or a radius. (They may not even have position.) Just like Cartesian or polar coordinates, perhaps Heisenberg’s principle tells us something fundamental about the universe. And perhaps not.
More generally, it’s a mistake to leap from truth to reality.