stingc

The usual versions of QM do give a consistent, if odd reality. If one person measures something, everyone else trying to verify the same result will get the same answer. That answer is not be predictable beforehand, but it does stay the same once its been observed once. Of course you run into defining what (or who) exactly has the ability to measure things.

Quantum mechanics really shouldn't be interpreted too literally at macroscopic scales anyways. At least not without a lot of very careful thought (more than anyone ever does). I don't think very many people would take things like Schrodinger's cat literally.

At the risk of going a little off-topic, I have to give my rant on QM. Quantum mechanics is perfectly deterministic until a "measurement" is made (whose action is axiomatically defined). Who can make a "measurement" and how is not specified.

Now if QM were a fundamental theory, it ought to apply not just to microscopic systems, but also to the combined microscopic system+macroscopic measurer. The complexity of solving the latter problem is much more difficult, but it should be possible in principle. Solving this big messy thing should remove the measurement ambiguity... But it doesn't. The effect of a "measurement" can NEVER be exactly reproduced through the deterministic Schrodinger equation.

There's obviously a lot more to these problems, but I'm just throwing it out there as a way of saying that extrapolating quantum mechanics is very tricky, if possible at all.