>>10898180The most plausible theory, in my opinion, is Quantum Darwinism. Here's an article that explains the theory in a pretty decent way:
quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-explain-objective-reality-passes-first-tests-20190722/Basically, even though it's just probability that governs what information from the observed quantum system is being imprinted onto other systems (spin-up or spin-down speed, position, etc.), some states become imprinted more often than others for whatever reason. Even if the chance of one state being imprinted instead of another is a simple 50/50, one will eventually outnumber the other by chance, causing a runaway effect as the information of that state affects further systems. Nothing makes one state more "special" than the other, it just randomly got imprinted more often than the other one by a minuscule amount and, thus, became imprinted upon other systems more and more often than the other state as time passed and the affected systems continued to react with others. It really doesn't take much for one state to have passed its information onto the vast majority of other local systems such that, to an observer in the macroscopic world reads out that information as absolutely one state or the other in a classical sense.
From the article: >If a typical dust grain floating in the air were put into a quantum superposition of two different physical locations separated by about the width of the grain itself, collisions with air molecules would cause decoherence — making the superposition undetectable — in about 10?31 seconds.
