don't forget, this is considered a "model" and not the be-all end-all map of the universe. the fact is, statistically speaking, if we are given a box and told "it may be empty, or it may have something in it", then we can say that the box has 50% something in it, and 50% emptiness.AK wrote:Particles only react when they are observed. Cause and effect, its at microcosm and macrocosm and its all vibration at the core.
of course when we open the box we find out which was true. let's say something was in the box all along. now that we have seen it in the box we can say that the box has 100% something in it. we all know that the box had something in it all along. the object did not appear when we opened the box, it was there before.
quantum mechanics seem to have huge mystical implications, but don't forget they were discovered to explain atomic and mathematical events. thusly common sense and macroatomic logic have little to do with it. quantum psychics and mechanics are not translatable to psychology, sociology or metaphysics. they can be used to model such things, in a theoretical sense, but you must be willing to accept huge assumptions. the topic of quantum anything becomes entangled in personal beliefs and religion, "what the bleep do we know" falls so far from explaining anything related to quantum physics because it wraps information about quantum physics into religion and mysticism. this is not a prudent viewpoint. it is nearly heretical in the world of science.
my personal belief is that we cannot take scientific information and force it to fit our emotional states. instead it should be a tool, something we can use to learn from, but it is not an emotional guide post by any means.
therefore i wouldn't say something like "the universe only exists if we are looking at it." it's been there all along, but until we do observe it science cannot say anything of it without sureity.