My view on this is that levels of function supervene on others, but aren't dependent on them. For example, massive objects, their orbits, the forces that act on them, etc. don't necessarily depend on QM mechanics. I mean, in our universe they do, but you could have billiard-ball mechanics with many other frameworks under the hood.
As an analogy, let's look at the Windows operating system. It's run on particular semiconductor arrangements righ tnow. However, it could in theory run equally well on a diamond-embedded quantum computer or on trained otters arranging seashells on the beach (obviously, it would run a lot slower, then).
I don't think you can learn much about meaning from QM. Meaning exists on ITS level of operation, and while QM are required for a framework of meaning to supervene, the meaning itself is totally independent of the bits on which it supervenes. They are separate contexts.
As an analogy, let's look at the Windows operating system. It's run on particular semiconductor arrangements righ tnow. However, it could in theory run equally well on a diamond-embedded quantum computer or on trained otters arranging seashells on the beach (obviously, it would run a lot slower, then).
I don't think you can learn much about meaning from QM. Meaning exists on ITS level of operation, and while QM are required for a framework of meaning to supervene, the meaning itself is totally independent of the bits on which it supervenes. They are separate contexts.
