I know what Odin is. He is described in certain ways. Odin is known, so to say. And as it turns out, not only does he not explain quantum physics, he doesn't even fit in the macroscopic world we experience.
And another one: it's not me. I am not making this work.
See, I just excluded two options, therefore, it can't be anything.
Well, here's a couple of interesting things.
Odin, with attendant pantheon, is an anthropomorphic "naming" of the incomprehensible. While that naming makes "Odin known, so to say," it isn't a knowledge, it is just a name...sort of a shorthand...just like any other naming of the incomprehensible is, whether that name is anthropomorphic or not. So to say "it can't be Odin" is just a separation of the anthropomorphic name from what it was originally applied to. The incomprehensible that was given that name could be said to be the same incomprehensible that makes quantum mechanics work, since "incomprehensible" is just a more erudite sounding naming anyway.
Second interesting thing is that if you took the right apparatus in a properly designed experiment you in fact
could be "the observer that makes quantum mechanics work." One of the really difficult things for me to wrap my own mind around is that if two identical particles are created, and you measured one in some way, which produces information regarding the identical particle that is now known without disruptive measurement, it doesn't have to be you that observes that in the other particle to make the verification. It could be me, or any other experimenter.
So,
the observation is done by some incomprehensible connected to/within/part of or otherwise associated with you, which apparently is held in common by all possible observers. Whatever the incomprehensible is, while it is
not you, per se, it is definitely intimately associated with you. With
us. Otherwise quantum mechanics, which is proven to be an accurate predictor of objective reality, can't work the way it does.
Quantum mechanics is actually subjective, with an incomprehensible observer somewhere outside of objective reality. The name attached is always inadequate, so it makes no difference if you want to use "the mighty eye of science" and someone else wants to use "Odin" and someone else uses some other gang of letters. It also makes no difference if someone believes they can "speak to" the incomprehensible and someone else believes that no one can, because unless you can catch a bus tour of outside of objective reality there is no information available to prove or disprove either one.
