> Even more importantly, no one has ever proposed a consistent, non-reductionist theory of nature It seems the point of non-reductionism is that you can't prop

> Even more importantly, no one has ever proposed a consistent, non-reductionist theory of nature It seems the point of non-reductionism is that you can't propose such a theory. For instance, if we were in a simulation that decides whether to optimize quantum to macroscopic transition based on what we're looking at, we're simply not going to find what causes wave functions to collapse because there isn't an underlying rule to find. We're "observers" just because we're flagged as such. For us in the simulation, certain things just happen for apparently arbitrary reasons because we can't peer into the source code. It'd be like a character in an FPS trying to figure out why shooting breaks some things but others are indestructible.