> if I failed to explain it well, I would not be the first. This, at least, is definitely true. If anything, the fact that you don't posit magically violating

> if I failed to explain it well, I would not be the first. This, at least, is definitely true. If anything, the fact that you don't posit magically violating pretty much every conservation law in the history of physics (Copenhagen interpretation/collapse postulate) or magically duplicating the entire universe (Many worlds interpretation), arguably puts you ahead of most actual quantum physicists (albeit, one hopes, more on the explanation front than the understanding one), although my estimation of that relative to the latter might just be a artifact having a easier time imputing metaphorical status to "illusion" than to "world". (Copenhagen gets no such excuse, though, so you're still ahead of a plurality of actual quantum physicists.)