[Orlanthai]

It depends on what one calls the measurement problem.

This solves the "consistency/small problem", i.e. treating the macroscopic apparatus as boolean is justified.

It doesn't resolve the "outcome problem", i.e. which outcome is selected. Of course if you accept the world is not deterministic this isn't really a problem.

[alpineidyll3]

One could argue even classical mechanics isn't deterministic as we think of it because of chaos, which has fascinating connections with QM. W Hoover (of the Nose-Hoover thermostat fame) did some great work with reversible thermostats exploring the instability of Newtons equations of motion.

[Orlanthai]

I think that's different. Chaos still uses classical probability and the randomness is just ignorance of underlying initial conditions. This is very different from QM.

[alpineidyll3]

You'd be surprised. You should read about many-body localization and the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis.

[Orlanthai]

I have. They still don't make Quantum Theory and Chaos similar. Rather for some systems QM can motivate ergodicity as well as classical chaos can. However that doesn't mean Quantum Probability and Classical Probability are alike simply because they give similar behaviour for certain systems for one specific limit. Their representation theory is completely different.

Chaotic systems don't have a Kochen-Specker or PBR theorem.