(1)Its not that am making anything up. (2)Am just probing with a bit of unorthodox curiosity that might get in the "nerves" of some scientists ... (3a) we start with the “Copenhagen interpretation” of the nature of subatomic particles as existing as "Wave Particle" (3b) So, as it were, all that exists, us included are made of "stuff" which are in a state of supper-positioning. (4)The lack of "small things" making the "big things" we see, means that even if we "see things" i.e "observe" these things we observe are not made of "small things" Its basically an emptiness of Waves in Motion.
(5)So, one has to wonder, given that these things include us, it also means that this "us" are mare an emptiness, made of Waves in Motion. I think its here you must consider the implication of this assertion, which has been made through scientific inquiry.
(6) If all that exists are trillions and trillions of Quantum Systems existing in state of super positioning, a mare emptiness of Waves in Motion, what then, is this in us, which interprets this emptiness" giving it a sense of Reality? (7) You cannot now say that Consciousness is unnecessary. (8) If Reality is an emptiness, how come, we are making sense of it anyway? (9) Its because we are conscious beings. ... (10) how then, could intelligent consciousness emanate from something so.......dead?
Point by point reply:
1) True. You are repeating Bishop Berkeley's POV from more than 300 years ago.
2) False. You are (intentionally?) misunderstanding what QM is and teaches - no doubt have never done a QM calculation as I have.
3a) True (Probably. Certainly even atoms have QM's wave like properties, as do their electron, neutron & proton components, but whether or not the two components of neutron & protons (quarks) have those wave like properties, AFAIK, is unknown.
3b) False. "All that exists" is not in a superposition of states. For example a brick is not.
4) False. Here again your lack of understanding of QM is exposed. For example, you read words like "Wave function collapses when an observation is made," but lack real understanding of what that means. In this case you misunderstand what is the meaning of statements that only those ignorant of QM would make (except when in a hurry and speaking to others who do know what their compressed statement is saying) For example: The statement that "the electron is both particle and wave." That is not really a statement about the nature of the electron, but about the fact the election In some experiments resembles more what humans call waves and in other interaction exhibits behavior more like what humans call particles.
To generalize: The wave function (or the matrices that QM was first described with) are just that: CONVENIENT DESCRIPTIONS with which one can calculate and predict then observable results of experiments involving very tiny masses or energy packets. The have no more reality than sin(a) does. They are description one can calculate with, not things of with material existence. Sin(X) allow you to compute the length of a 90 degree triangle's "leg" opposite to the angle X that the other leg makes with the hypotenuse.. - Like the earlier QM matrices or the more modern form, the wavefunction, the sin(x) is an immaterial calculation tool.
5) False, but almost true, except for your misunderstanding of "wave in motion." Yes Lord Rutherford was greatly surprised by the result he observed when scattering of alpha particles from thin gold foil, as in 1910–11. The "raisin pudding model" of atoms was prevailing POV before he noted that all but a very tiny fraction of the alpha particles just went thru the very thin gold foil as if it was not even there, but a tiny few were strongly scattered.
That is the way science works. With our creative consciousness man creates models of how reality, mater, etc. is and then tests them with experiments. If mater were just the creation of consciousness, as you claim, then the "raisin pudding model" of atoms would have been confirmed as well informed consciousness could not conceive pre-Rutherford that "sold mater" was 99.9+ percent empty space.
6) False. Most of mater is not in a superposition of QM states. It is mostly empty space but atoms are very hard non-the-less as is the brick, made from a large number of them.
7) False. Consciousness as it exists in the higher animals, is very recent addition to the universe, which started ~ 13 billion years ago, to evolve.
8) False. Parts of reality are not "emptiness" There are AFAWK, three most fundamental and indestructible types of mater: electrons and two different types of "quarks." (Up & Down).
Here is your "grade" - Severn false and one true. Go back to preaching your version of religion, to believers in other forms like re-incarnation cycles, and stop exposing your vast ignorance about QM.