LeGrande, you were quoting Wheeler here as if you agreed with his statement, or more accurately, as a proof of your position. When bb observes that there is no communication involved between space-time and matter you say that proves your point of no cause and effect and then declare it an "Aha, eureka!" moment. Was your purpose for posting the Wheeler statement to say he was full of it? It didn't seem that way. In keeping with your history you seem once again to be practicing linguistic gymnastics.
Wheeler isn't claiming that spacetime and matter 'talk' to each other any more than the Earth's gravity well 'tells' the Moon how to accelerate. It is a metaphor that was purposely misinterpreted by Alamo Girl I think, not Betty (I am too lazy to check).
Since position is a fixed point and momentum is movement one obviously cannot measure both at the same time because they can't both exist at the same time. Yet, as is always the case, they are both part of the whole.
That is your interpretation of the superposition principle? You need to reread the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The two slit experiment also seems elementary to me. If you want to see a particle you experiment with one slit, a wave with two. However, I do not know, and apparently no one else does either, why a wave would not go through a single slit. I assume it has to do with Newton's Law of Conservation of Energy. I guess that is the one, it sounds like it is.
LOL You are clueless about the two slit experiment. The number of slits doesn't determine whether a wave or a particle goes through them it is our attempts to determine which is going through the slits that determines what goes through.
Since it is obvious that subatomic particles are both particle and wave, because they can be seen as both, (they are Newtonian particles and Einsteinium waves) then they adapt to their environment and use whichever form is appropriate to their environment and the task at hand.
True, everything can be described as a wave, but waves and particles interact differently. I don't have a clue regarding what you mean by Newtonian Particles and Einsteinium waves, but the idea that they adapt to their environment and the task at hand is for the lack of a more polite term 'special'?
Since they travel at the same speed a particle cannot split in two when faced with two choices so it converts to waves and accomplishes the goal. I am sure that must be wrong but to the untrained it seems right.
I am laughing, but some brilliant minds actually thought something similar so I can't be too hard on you : )
I don't know why, but I will try and help you out. Think of the matter/wave as a wavefunction in a bowl above your head. Ice cubes are the matter and water are the waves. If you use a fork you will empty the entire container and it will all be ice cubes, or if you use a spoon you can empty the entire container of water, or if you like you can use a fork and get ice cubes and switch to the spoon to get water until the bowl is emptied.
What is in the bowl is determined by the tool that you use to take it out. The observer decides. Einstein hated that answer. It has nothing to do with what the wavefuntion wants, at least we don't think so : )
Just to stay in character and pay you back, let me quote you, "Once again, being unburdened with knowledge seems a blessing." Truly you are blessed.
But what could a wavefunction "want?" Are you saying that the wavefunction is an intelligent agent, with "wants?"
It seems that only intelligent agents can have "wants," a/k/a desires....
The next time I read the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it will be the first. I have been upfront about being unschooled in the sciences. I function with limited intellectual capacity and intuitive reasoning. I reason from street level rather than Ivory Tower heights. That is the best I can do. Sometimes I hit, sometimes I miss.