but I'm not in the picketing mood. I'll just agree with you that your terminology is hard to follow and loose, as I'm accustomed to "macro" and "micro" being used for size-relations (e.g. macro cosmic scale and micro planck scale). The way you use them they are redundant and only add to confusion, as we agree that a "macro" like universe can be a single quantum event.
And in that sense I don't see why reductionistic "causal" arrow 'quantum -> classical' should be called "bottom-up" instead of e.g. "top-down", as the direction is "holografically" from more general to particular. Bottom-up and top-down are hierarchical or gravitational metaphors.
And what *is* quantum except the mathematical weirdness that experiments obey? And what *is* math?
Complexity and variety of relations, math included, the dance of forms, do not "emerge" from atoms banging into each other (as lay-mans physics still think) or other notions of classic causality, but cools down from Absolute Entropy of no-form aka Singularity; we with our brains and neurons and all this jazzy biomatter and thoughts are "state function reductions" or "decoherred" complexes; both "it from bit" and "bit from it". There is no need to think that we are products of deterministic classic causality, as those are just quantum histories flowing "backwards" from this thusly decoherred state-moment of cosmic self-reflection aka "measurement event".
As you see, I'm not disagreeing with your quantum version of "reductionism" at all, the way I understand it. I'm just explaining it better. 
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read