The strawman walked away! Thanks. Which similar expressions you refer to? You think QM can be applied to sea waves or oil drops?

Not sure what you mean by projecting advanced properties, (mental properties) to the quantum level. You mean explaining consciousness by QM (with which I disagree), or projecting classical macro properties to the quantum realm (with which I agree)?

What is the verified scientific paradigm?

QM calculate and predict the mechanics of particles. We calculate different characteristics of the smallest packets of energy (quanta/the minimum amount of any physical entity) detectable and measurable through their interactions. — Nickolasgaspar

What are these mechanics or characteristics?

those described by Quantum Mechanics
The following article of Britannica it mentions more of the properties we can measure.

" Which similar expressions you refer to? You think QM can be applied to sea waves or oil drops?"
No I didn't say that. I said that similar phenomena described and predicted in QM can be observed in the classical world.
https://thefutureofthings.com/3698-the-wave-that-changed-science/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

-"Not sure what you mean by projecting advanced properties, (mental properties) to the quantum level."
-when people believe that quantum fields can produce mind properties,chemical properties, biological etc...while they can only enable kinetic properties.

You mean explaining consciousness by QM (with which I disagree), or projecting classical macro properties — GraveItty

-" You mean explaining consciousness by QM (with which I disagree), or projecting classical macro properties to the quantum realm (with which I agree)?"
-Both.

-"What is the verified scientific paradigm? "
-The naturalistic paradigm that verified the need of low level mechanisms(structure and function) in order for new advanced properties to emerge. i.e. properties like chemical, biological and mental are contingent to specific structures and functions.

I would like to move this topic along to a more focused discussion of the natural world and metaphysics, which necessarily must talk about the ontology of physics.

We have touched on causality -- which barely got the attention it deserves. To those classical believers of the natural world, causality is discovered. And if they're not discovered, it is just a matter of time or just our human limitation that prevents us from discovering them. As causality is tied to natural constants -- whatever they are -- it's been said that these constants change overtime, as the universe ages. But this idea is merely speculation. There are no scientific discovery that proves that constants can or have or could change. So, let's leave this idea as simple as this.

We have touched on physical entities that behave differently as we move from micro to macro sizes. In the quantum sizes, probability is used as a tool to explain the phenomena of these entities. And we don't wonder why for a second why probability is not used as a tool to describe the unpredictability of the macro world, let alone declare the unpredictability of the macro entities. (Because we can't claim that the macro world is unpredictable, without invoking the fault of our own perception).

Additionally, it's been argued that causality and space (dare I say time also) are mere constraints that we impose on the natural world, and that causality doesn't always hold, and constants do not hold forever.

Do multi-forces really exist? Do we really need multi-theories to explain the natural world? Or are we just being accommodating of alternative ideas for the sake of scientific imagination?