In this thread I would like to start a debate on realism at the macroscopic level. To some of you this may be an issue that looks so trivial that it doesn't make any sense to try to talk about it. It is my hope that you still may be interested in making some comment, especially if someone else disputes what you have already classified as trivial. The kind of situation that I am referring to as macroscopic realism is in connection with large objects, such as those that we can see around us. It could be argued that this thread does not belong in QM but in classical mechanics. But in classical mechanics realism is a given. It is only by studying how the macroscopic world results from the interaction of microscopic systems that this issue sometimes arises. I see mainly two possibilities here with some people having positions in between. If you believe in realism at the macroscopic level, how do you define it? If you don't believe in it, could you still define it? not as a fact of nature but as a belief other people may have?. In this case, what is your picture of the world (only at the macroscopic level)?