I appreciate your advice. I am not wholly unfamiliar with what you have brought to my attention. Schrodinger’s cat is just a thought experiment. I believe it is ultimately rooted in the following which I have copied from Wikipedia:
The prevailing theory, called the Copenhagen interpretation, says that a quantum system remains in superposition until it interacts with, or is observed by the external world. When this happens, the superposition collapses into one or another of the possible definite states.
The double slit experiment, and the delayed choice quantum eraser, are in my opinion the best of what science has to offer and I am most in agreement with the Copenhagen interpretation regarding this matter (I believe the main alternative is the many worlds interpretation, which I disagree with).
What the above empirical observations (experiments) show, is how a wave of possibilities exist at any given point in time (according to the Copenhagen interpretation). All hypothetical possibilities are possible because of the Nature of Existence and the delayed choice quantum eraser empirically hints at this a priori truth in my opinion.
That which is Omnipresent encompasses all time and space. To me, the delayed choice quantum eraser is like observing Existence give you a hint of Its Omnipresence and Potentiality. I say Omnipresence because it is like the past and the future are connected such that It (Existence) Knows what decisions or occurrences could/will occur in the future, and Organises events to ensure consistency between the past and the future. Where x is Omnipresent, it encompasses ALL time and space. Different people will have different interpretations of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. To me, it is like watching Existence say, ‘you cannot outmanoeuvre Me or trick Me or cheat Me. I Know what you reveal and what you hide. I Know what you decide and why decide and under what circumstances you would decide. I Know your intentions (good or otherwise)’. Evidently, my interpretation of this experiment is in line with Existence Being Perfect because I believe this to be an a priori truth (because I see rejection of Existence Being Perfect as being semantically inconsistent).
Note that neither the Copenhagen interpretation or the many worlds theory present a theory that is immediately semantically inconsistent as far as we can tell now. But we know that both of them cannot be correct, so objectively speaking, at least one of them is semantically inconsistent, we just don’t know which yet. It’s like hearing one person say Jack is at the park now, and another saying Jack is at home now. ALL PREMISES/THINGS considered, they cannot be both semantically consistent. At least one of them is saying what is contradictory (semantically inconsistent) in relation to the matter at hand.
So when I say neither of the above theories are immediately semantically inconsistent, I mean to say they do not say one thing is two different things at the same time (which is immediately semantically inconsistent and in no need of further empirical observation or semantical consideration to rule out. One thing not being two different things at the same time, is a matter of pure reason (a priori principles). It is not something you accept or reject via empirical observation. Empirical observations are interpreted with such principles in mind to form coherent theories that are not immediately semantically inconsistent). They interpret the observation in a meaningful manner (as opposed to in a manner that is immediately contradictory in meaning)). Which one is true, is unknown to us. What is certainly true, is that you cannot have an interpretation/theory that is semantically inconsistent describe what is true of Existence. Think about it:
If a famous scientist comes out and says we’ve just observed a round square or a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time, the rational people would say, this cannot be true. Some alternate explanation must be the case. It does not matter how famous this scientist is. What he is suggesting is absurd/irrational/impossible to be true of Existence/Reality.
Again, when a belief/theory is semantically inconsistent (which can be revealed as a result of an empirical observation), it is reconciled such that it is no longer semantically inconsistent. Check why we have paradigm shifts in science. So if x observes something like the double slit experiment, he concludes something like the Copenhagen interpretation does, or the many worlds theory if he is any good at being a scientist or exercising reason. He does not conclude that which is immediately contradictory. He does not conclude that which is by definition, not understandable to ALL beings.