Sili, let me start be saying that you are, undoubtedly, extremely well-versed in this subject, and I was actually hoping to draw your attention with this post :-), seeing as I noticed your Berkley.edu IP, and you already have expressed great interest in physics. Therefore, it seems my guess was right, and a studious Berkleyman you are :-).
I appreciate your opinion and insight on this subject greatly because it gives a fresher perspective than the more dull books I've read. It also lets me understand a couple things better too.
The only thing that sort of refutes it is this concept learnable in Chem I (this is just an example):
Between two molecules, there are two equally possible ways that a bond will form. Therefore, the molecules are portrayed as having partial bonds in both ways. The chemistry describes that both are simultaneously happening. Equally, as you noted, once we observe the bond, it will take on its true form, and one bond or the other will be visible, but not both. However, until we observe the bond, it is in a mixed state of both simultaneously existing.
Can you deny the absurdity of that? The same is described that the particles which compose the empy glass on my desk here are strewn across the universe, along with everything else, and that, somehow, looking in the vicinity where the glass should be makes it form and coalesce into that location; that looking at an object, observing something, is the only thing which gives it location in the universe. Not only is this rediculous, it's proven wrong. That's why quantum mechanics is not a tool to rival Relativity, much less equal it, and that something better should be devised.
True, it can predict certain things, without a doubt, with relative accuracy, but it can't predict our normal or celestial universe, can it? Of course not, so we don't use it to describe such things, only using it where necessary, letting pieces fall away as the hard evidence is uncovered which contradicts it, not continue to follow it blindly as if it were gospel.
Oddly enough, I was planning this enitire discussion to this point.
Quantum mechanics is good now, but better things can and do come along. Just the same, GURPS is a tool we use now because it works for some intensive purposes, despite the inaccuracies and contradictions it has with what we truly know. A philosphical science should not take president over emperical fact. Equally, a role playing game should not determine a barely related computer game. We use GURPS for what we don't understand yet, but it should naturally give way to what we find which contradicts it, not follow it as if it's God's plan or intention, for it is no more than an invention, no matter how divinely inspired.
Everything strewn and mixed across the universe as waves until observed indeed…
The Deceiver not dead because Bungie wanted to intend something…right…
