oh well

The distinction between the observation and the interaction of quantum particles is basically nil at this point, since we can't say that they are necessarily separate. Yet quantum particles are interacting infinitely, out of sight. Doesn't mean they're observed. So what is there to define my observations as my own? Essentially nothing.

Obviously, I am observing. It is only obvious to myself that I am observing, really, but there it is.

At a quantum level, there is not much defining me as myself. At an observational level, there is not much - I'll continue this later

There must be some definition of observation that is not interaction or some definition of interaction that is not observation, because interaction is occurring all the time if all quantum particles are to be in all possibilities at once. A level of observation on this level would require an omniscient observer, which is not to be denied out of hand. Furthermore, what defines the interactions that are observed? Is it purely the mind? This is not to be denied out of hand either. If so, then what is the mind? Is the mind or the observer a constant, or is there uncertainty there as well, to provide for an unlimited number of observed possibilities?

A problem with the observation of a quantum particle is that the physical mechanisms for the observation of said particle are themselves uncertain, according to the viewer, and must therefore be discounted. Stripping away all the artifacts, you come down to the observer, which, in the only case I can accurately cite, is only special in that it is metacognitive, which would explain its constance (if, indeed, there is any). However, in being a feedback loop, it is neither certain or uncertain - which came first, the observation, or observation of observation?

Again, we come to the definition of observation.

The simple route would be to define observation as interaction and vice versa, and then use a metaphor to describe the infinite observers required for such a large range of possibilities, such as God.

A problem with observation is that we, as observers (and I take a large risk by using the plural) are composed of the same particles we are observing, and therefore arise from the same laws, if there are laws. That must mean some quantum particle, or some combination of quantum particles, combines to form an observational entity.

Now, with quantum particles existing in all possibilities at all times, there are an infinite number of combinations of quantum particles occurring at all times, out of sight. My sight. "My" "sight." This would explain the infinite number of observers. However, it also invalidates the idea of individualism, not that this is a shock.

However, the entire idea is that with observation, there is certainty. Infinite observers also invalidates this idea, unless particles can be in infinite locations at once. "Once." Time is reliant on an observer. Time may be the illusion required to explain the infinite amount of observers. It is wholly dependent on point of view.

But I digress.

The infinite number of observers would invalidate individualism, as well as the idea of certainty and the idea of an "observer." Infinity is, after all, an unthinkably large amount. The whole could be thought of as a single observer, though.

Now, say the particles exist in all possibilities without interacting. Then we have a problem. The only way you can define what composes an observer is with another observer. Otherwise, the mechanisms for observation are unobservable unless, again, it is stripped away to the barest meaning of observation, which is wholly a matter of subjective reality.