In a base sense, I agree with you. But this way of looking at it will lead to a misinterpretation that it's just our inability to measure it that is behind the weirdness. I tend to think of it like this: nature, at it's core, is fundamentally weird. Our frame of understanding is based on definite postulates that "things" have a certain "position", they can be only be in one "place" at one "time" and our body of scientific logic and reasoning is built on it. At core of QM, there is the Broglie concept of matter waves. What we used to consider as elementary particles are fundamentally a wave which exhibits particle-like behavior in certain scenarios. If you accept that everything (the double slit, the beam, the screen, a bunch of grey cells postulating about it) is a combination of fields of probabilities of what we call as "elementary particles", it will become easier to digest. "observation" is nothing but an act of interaction of some of these fields that takes away the "coherent" nature of an observed weirdness ("collapse").

I believe experiments were conducted in a way measurement capacity is irrelevant. Either it's an effect of things being rendered (as in a real "simulation",much like pixels in a game depened on the "camera" to render) or there is an undiscovered quantum property that is confined to dimensions known or unknown that have yet to be discovered.

In QM you have the observer, in relativity you have the reference frame, I think physics is exploring fundamental properies of the reality we experience,that it is a subset of something else.

People talk about a quantum particles as being in many places at once. When you ask what that means, the explanation is that they aren’t in one place, their position is represented as a probability curve of the places that they might be right now, and then when an observer observes the particle, that curve flattens down to where the particle is.

That seems like a very anthropocentric view of the universe. Why would it matter whether a particle is “being observed”, UNLESS the act of observation has a side-effect. If “observation” is purely passive then it can’t affect anything, by definition.

A MUCH simpler explanation is that the way that we observe things (by looking at them) is by bouncing photos off of them. Quantum particles are small enough that bouncing a photon off of it can change its course.

Here’s an analogy : you’re blind, but you’re super good at throwing and catching basketballs. The way that you observe the world is by throwing a basketball and then timing how long it takes to come back to you and catch it, and by observing if it comes back at an angle or with some spin on it. Imagine you come across a pigeon. You throw the basketball at the pigeon. You observe strange behavior of the pigeon when you “observe” it vs when you don’t. You formulate the pigeon uncertainty principle. You describe pigeons as spooky. You just accept that pigeons follow different physics than school buses.

I believe the experiments were conductes in vaccum without light or photons. The double silt experiment I believe. From what I gather,they send particles in a controlled environment and see where they land AFTER it went through the silts, so interactions after the silt shouldn't affect which silt it goes through. That's why I said it could be some unknown interaction between the observer and the particles. Or unknown propery of a known interaction like gravitation.

To me, it sort of sounds like how time dilation works in relativity except for a different dimension.