This post contains replies to the remaining posts from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=490677
We see definite outcomes whenever we look at a system large enough that the assumptions of statistical mechanics apply. In particular, this holds for all the things that are _actually_ measured, such as pointers of instruments, colors of pixels on a screen, developped photographic plates, sounds in a Geiger counter,
currents in a photodetector.
We _infer_ from these raw measurements properties of systems that we cannot ''read'' directly, and the inference is as good or as bad as the causal link provided by quantum mechanical theory in the respective case.
Yes. This implies that the macroscopic pointer gives only unreliable information about the quantum particle, unless many repeated measurements are made under sufficiently idenitcal conditions.
The thermal interpretation does not _require_ the ensemble interpretation.
Instead, it gives the conditions under which an ensemble interpretation is valid.
See Section 10.3 of my book.
The difference is that I discard the so-called eigenvalue-eigenstate link,
and give the quantum expectation a different interpretation. See Sections 10.3-10.5 of my book.
It gives definite values to macroobservables of macrostate, within some tiny uncertainly level.
A valid simulation must be as nonlocal as QM itself.
It isn't local; I nowhere claimed that. The thermal interpretation shares all nonlocal features with orthodox quantum mechanics.