> Nah. It is an effort to explain to people who understand physics but little else why other peope, who don't understand physics, understand more than they do.

Except you can’t do that effectively if you don’t understand physics in the first place.

> You're mistaking what is conventional within physics for what is meaningful in real life. "System" is the wrong word for a single substance, even one so profoundly important to physicists as Bose-Einstein condensates.

What? No. A system is any portion of the universe chosen to be analyzed. Anything outside the system is considered an environment, and it is ignored except for its effects on the system. System is a perfectly valid word to mean what I intended to mean, and it absolutely can refer to a “single substance.” What even does that mean? If I want to know why a metal is lustrous I can’t treat it as a single thing. Its luster arises from quantum mechanical effects arising from its atomic scale structure and properties.

> It is used to model one very specific and particular (pun intended) kind of quantum system, which is really important because that specific "condensed matter" is a macroscopic substance, unlike most quantum systems, which are sub-atomic, so small that even using the contrast macro/microscopic is actually weird.

Condensed matter doesn’t apply only to one specific kind of system. It applies to a huge range of systems. It is in fact so broad that it’s the single largest sub field within physics, and has significant overlap with other disciplines. Things as mundane as metallic surfaces, salt crystals and as exotic as superconductivity, BECs, and liquid helium fall under the umbrella of condensed matter, as do most phase transitions.

And again, you’re missing the point. I gave it as an example. I also gave other examples, too. Over the years, quantum coherence has been observed in bigger and bigger systems, from large particles all the way to the 40 kg mirrors used in the LIGO experiment, each of which was placed near its quantum mechanical ground state.

> Nobody disputes that deterministic objects "demonstrate quantum mechanical properties"

Are you really that dense? Nobody except for the person I was talking to before you jumped into the conversation. I literally made my arguments to a person disputing what you’re saying no one disputes. It seems like you’re just being contrarian at this point.

> So the use of one example of a "macroscopic thing" demonstrating quantum properties (which, as far as I know, aren't observable as distinct from conventional properties in BEC without special equipment and in highly restricted circumstances) really doesn't have the weight you think it would, in this discussion.

That might be the case if it’s what I did. But it’s not. And you’d know that if you weren’t basing your responses to me based on brief skims of relevant Wikipedia articles about condensed matter, for example. Once again you’re outing yourself here. You not only don’t understand the physics, you don’t even know what entire fields within physics refer to. There’s a reason why I said “condensed matter” and not “BECs.” That’s like confusing “Newtonian mechanics” for “the mechanics governing how balls roll.”

> Not a strawman, just an example of what it would take to justify saying that QM effects "the macro world" of everyday objects.

No, very much a strawman. We haven’t proved that Newtonian mechanics works for every conceivable macroscopic system, either. Nor can we do ever prove such a thing: science relies on induction, and while we can’t prove the validity of inductive logic in science, if that’s the point you’re making then it applies to every iota of scientific understanding ever, not just to QM.

> AKA language. AKA discussion. AKA the real world.

And here you’re using language to deliberately misrepresenting my meaning. My point was, whether it’s about “how” or not is a matter of semantics, it just depends on what we each meant by “how,” which can be interpreted different ways. But it’s telling that instead of engaging with my lengthy argument after that word, you’ve latched onto this one word to make a pithy point with little bearing on the argument at hand, instead.

> A very important issue, in theory. Why is it that you have trouble excepting that proving something in principle to other scientists isn't the same as having an effect on the rest of the world?

How many times must we complete this circle? I show you that it’s been proven in principle, and you say “okay but prove that it has an effect on the world.” So I give you countless examples of ways that it has an effect on the world. And then you ignore all but one and say “but prove that it’s always true.” Do you truly think you’re being reasonable here?

> "Relevant". What a pleasantly useful dragging of the goalposts halfway down the field that is.

Please explain how that word shifted any goalposts.

> I never disputed that QM is relevant in those examples.

So wtf are you on about? The other person did and they’re who I was talking to. You jumped into a conversation between two people to have your own side argument with the wind?

> I just did a better job of it, and I thought I'd be helpful and explain what it is you were doing wrong in that regard.

Of course you think you’ve done a better job. You also think you’re more qualified to talk about quantum mechanics than Bohr and Einstein were, and that your personal philosophy makes you immune to falling for misconceptions. You have a very high opinion of yourself; of that much I’m sure we can agree.

> You have it backwards. The parts I don't engage are either trivial or accurate. The sections of your comments I directly address are mostly just the more illustrative mistak

No, you consistently ignore important points that derail your entire argument. If they’re accurate, you’d have gone away already. If you view them as trivial, then you clearly don’t understand them.

TL;DR Stick to arguing about things you understand. You don’t understand quantum mechanics.