>>11532433>but then also collections of macroscopic objects behave non-deterministicallyOnly over extremely large timescales (many many years). Take a bunch of billard balls bouncing off each other for example. You could simulate the motion practically exactly with F=ma, for maybe a million years, but then it would start to deviate and behave chaotically depending on initial conditions, due to the uncertainty principle and the de Broglie wavelength of a billard ball. That 1 million year number was a quick estimate, but it's probably larger.
>someone explain how sociological behavior is not "quantum"It technically is, in the same sense that my billard ball example is. But the atoms and molecules making up your neurotransmitters and thoughts are much smaller than billard balls, so they have more uncertainty due to the uncertainty principle. However, even atoms and molecules are described quite well by deterministic F=ma, especially at room temperature (look up Molecular Dynamics simulations). So, I think social interaction is more deterministic than you would think, but the vast number of interacting atoms and molecules that compose a thought go beyond what modern computers can simulate (I think the largest simulation was around a billion molecules).
>people interact and their states become entagledNo, that's an interesting way of saying something extremely vague with no actual meaning.
