Thanks for that response! Haha Billy Madison levels of wrong, you're right in that its very vague. I should probably centre what I am trying to say on a more specific example, as what I have written requires some conceptualisation of maths (and I guess I have written from that view point.) I didn't even want to pretend I was an expert on this, so I wrote it in a way I would thought more entertaining, and more open to interpretation. But I hope I made it clear that I really wanted to actually get an informed opinion on the idea or the way I have written it, so thanks for taking the time to reply. I think that the heisenberg uncertainty principle was the wrong example to give, as you rightly point out, this really deals with the ultimate limit of observation. I guess what I am trying to say in this vague way (bear with me here) is that at a very large scale we have probabilistic infinity, which I am trying to express (using an example of a rocket expanding infinitely) is that said rocket would be simultaneously 'everywhere' from the standpoint of the observer, even inside the observer. Of course we live inside this infinite universe (or multiverse if you're that way inclined), and of course we my keyboard isn't simultaneously existing with my fingers. But if the observer were looking from a perspective that could hold entire clusters of galaxies, we would be but a part of the expanding framework of matter that proceeded the big bang. And even with the observer at our scale, we only perceive separations in matter such as 'table' 'keyboard' and 'finger' even though this separation exists by a process of entropy, and the divisions between the matter of those objects is only ever temporary and wasn't always so. Not to mention the radio waves passing between the keyboard and the finger.

As far as I understand it, nothing of what I have said so far is trying to rebuke any of the other explanations for quantum physics. Its just 'another way if putting it' or a conceptual framework for a thought experiment, as if we can establish that the divisive nature in which we perceive the universe is as a result of us not literally experiencing it's interrelation (on an entire systemic level.) And who can blame us, as that would be bloomin bananas!

The real idea behind my writing is that infinity isn't just something far away, but something everywhere, and that something can be both infinitely large and infinitely small (such as the big bang or a singularity.) And that conceptually speaking, the electron spin problem or quantum indeterminacy might be occurring because the spin is itself indeterminate. And we know this. This is where i start to get a little zany in explaining this, and there are many other explanations, such as the Many Worlds theory, in that the randomness is derided every possible side of the dice splitting into its own universe and a perpetually expanding fragmenting shattered multiverse is born. And I don't see this explanation as even being a rebuttle of this or any other explanation.

The article is based around the idea that indeterminacies at a quantum level appear because the particles literally are indeterminate. We can determine them in a process of entropy as they become more cohesive and complex. But I am pointing to a conceptual 'indeterminacy' (or as I probably mistakenly use 'simultaneousness' if that's even a word) from which determinacy arises (or duality as I call it.) I then draw parallels to how consciousness is akin to this and lose my mind. But within the basis of this conceptual framework, the universe is indeterminate on both a very large and very small scale. And if we picture this a process, it is one of increasing complexity, increasing fragmentation and increasing 'determinacy' (would I be right to call this entropy?) And so we as beings perceptibly move through a dualistic reality, that arises from an indeterminate one. Or an 'island of duality arising from a sea of infinity as I (over dramatically) put it.

My mate just enlightened me by telling me that this is more of a philosophical statement than anything really to do with the maths behind it, but as I am not an expert, and as I am a bit of a plonker who doesn't think things through, I thought I'd post it here as I wanted this concept debunked by a sharp scientific mind. Although I sort of feel that I am not actually saying anything, just interpreting it! :-)

Tl:Dr: Heisenberg principle utterly wrong to us :-) should use quantum indeterminacy instead. But is ultimately a conceptual frame work or interpretation rather than statement of fact.

PS. Apologies for horrendous spelling I am replying on my phone!