Scar by Eric J. Heller.

However, the fact that the quantum-mechanical probability algorithm cannot provide sufficient conditions for value-indicating events, would signal the incompleteness of the theory only if such conditions nevertheless existed. If the theory is complete, what follows instead is that value-indicating events are uncaused.

By the same token, the fact that the theory does not permit us to attribute values to unmeasured observables, would signals the incompleteness of the theory only if unmeasured values existed. If the theory is complete, what follows instead is that no observable has a value unless a value is indicated (by something that happens or is the case in the macroworld).

Again, the fact that quantum mechanics confines the use of causal concepts to the macroworld, would signal the incompleteness of the theory only if a microcausal nexus nevertheless existed. If the theory is complete, what follows instead is the non-existence of a microcausal nexus.

And again, the fact that quantum mechanics does not permit us to carry the spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world all the way down, would signal the incompleteness of the theory only if the physical world were nevertheless differentiated all the way down. If the theory is complete, what follows instead is that the spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world is incomplete.

Finally, the fact that the quantum-mechanical correlation laws leave no room for a physical process by which measurement outcomes determine the probabilities of measurement outcomes, would signal the incompleteness of the theory only if there nevertheless was such a process. If the theory is complete, what follows instead is the non-existence of such a process.

Now, as was pointed out here, no fundamental theory can be explained on the basis of a "more fundamental" theory, and the classical sleight-of-hand — the transmogrification of a mathematical algorithm into a physical mechanism or process — does not work with the quantum theory, or else it makes absolutely no sense (which is not quite the same as the assertion, made by certain theorists, that quantum mechanics itself makes absolutely no sense). And so there is no such thing as an underlying microcausal nexus, nor a mechanism by which outcomes here determine the probabilities of outcomes there, nor a mechanism by which value-indicating events are caused (let alone a mechanism by which the indicated values are determined).

There is also ample evidence that to be is to be measured.

Nor should we forget that it was the incomplete spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world that made it possible to establish the completeness of the theory, by showing that the theory is capable of encompassing the value-indicating events that are presupposed by it.

Finally, my business here is to investigate the ontological consequences of the quantum theory conditional on the assumption that the theory is both fundamental and complete. (And, as said, neither is there empirical evidence to the contrary, nor does anyone know what could possibly replace this eminently successful fundamental framework of contemporary physics.)