Question about the Big Bang

I don't think that schrodinger's cat is in all places until observed. it, like an electron, COULD be in any place, and when it's observed, only then do we know where it's at. if a cat were in all places before observation, it would be bloody when it was observed. guts everywhere. hawking did research on quarks behaving like this, but i'm not buying it. just because somebody isn't looking at the quark doesn't mean that the quark doesn't have a location. however, observing something can change the direction or speed that it's traveling because to observe it you have to hit it with photons or electrons or some type of energy. that way if we know which direction and speed it was traveling when we observed it, we don't know where it went afterwards. that's the idea behind uncertainty. you can know one detail about it, but not all details about it. in all reality, according to nikola tesla, the big bang never happened. but according to einstein, if it had, all points in the universe are valid as "here," the center of the relativistic dimension, and therefore, yes, your "all states" thesis becomes true.

Heisenberg Uncertainly Principal - You cannot measure both the location of an electron and then predict it's future location without altering the system. The act of measuring either the position or momentum of the electron accurately alters the state of the system That's why your statement doesn't make logical sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty…

Absolutely, I've often considered that intelligent life may be inevitable as the universe would only "solidify" into one state or position if observed by said life. The one reality in which we were possible was the one reality with the power to "exist". I probably mis-phrased that horribly, sorry!