Hello there. I stopped by because I was curious about what line of reasoning you'd be following, and I found some questionable or even outright wrong assumptions in your arguments. I've decided to clear up the one which I consider more important and about which I know a bit more.
The most striking wrong premise for me is when you say that "experiments such as the Double Slit experiment have led to the realization that, on a quantum level, what we perceive to be reality only exists as waves of probability until an observer collapses the waves into particles, crystalizing one possibility into reality while negating any other possibilities". This is a very common misconception concerning the wavefunction collapse and the measurement problem. What both experiments and quantum theory tell us is that quantum objects are not characterized in the same fashion as classical objects; while a ballistic projectile, for example, may be characterized at any point in space and time by its position and momentum, a quantum particle does not in general have a well defined position or momentum, and is instead characterized by a wavefunction which has a connection with the probability distribution of finding the particle at a given position of moving with a given momentum upon measurement. So, a freely evolving quantum object will generally not have a well defined position and momentum, but when we attempt to measure any of those things, we actually get a result, as if a single value was instantly selected according to a probability distribution. This feature is what is called "wavefunction collapse", and while it is an observational fact, it is philosophically not well understood.
But what does it mean to measure something? How do we measure the position of a particle. Essentially, we make it interact with some physical apparatus which produces a signal that we can interpret as a measurement. In the physical sense, the core feature of a measurement is not the existence of a conscious observer, but rather the interaction between the particle and the measurement apparatus. Now, if you take away completely the conscious observer from this picture, and imagine simply the particle interacting with the apparatus, the same "collapse" process takes place. There is no evidence whatsoever that the external conscious observer plays any role in the "wavefunction collapse"; it is rather a feature of the physical interaction process between two systems (the particle and the apparatus, in this case).
I hope I was able to clear up this issue.
Consciousness has to interact with it at some point to read the measurement.... If you never look at the results how would you know what they were. I didn't go into it here but I have had experiences that show that causes can even happen after the effects and this is particularly true on a quantum level. For instance, when 2 particles have quantum entanglement and you define the set of poles on one then the other will have the same polar configuration. Then, the polar configuration will have always been there effectively even though you didn't define it until a certain point.
I appreciate your answer to my comment. This idea that "consciousness has to interact with it at some point to read the measurement" is not something to be outright dismissed from a philosophical point of view. Even a few renowned physicist have had a similar reasoning at some point. However, there is still no plausible reason for me to assume that it is the act of me reading a number on a screen that retroactively causes the wavefunction of the particle to have collapsed in the first place. This seems a rather farfetched assumption in comparison with the much more simple view that physical interactions between quantum states entail within themselves the mechanisms of wavefunction collapse. The conscious mind does not have any appreciable physical interaction with the particle in the experiment, while the the measuring apparatus has. You should consider two scenarios: 1) the measuring apparatus is turned on, and the observer registers a certain behavior, in which typically the quantum features are lost due to collapse; 2) the apparatus is turned off, and the observer, who is there just like before, registers a different behavior which evidences the quantum properties of the particle. Question: where is the difference between the two scenarios, in the observer or in the measuring apparatus? What seems to be the plausible cause for the change of behavior?
Retrocausality has been subject to some research, but until now there, not a single evidence pointing to its occurrence has been produced. You say you've had experiences revealing retrocausality; would you mind sharing them? Because I'm completely unaware of anything of the sort.
Also, you are misrepresenting the current understanding of quantum entanglement. I've explained in my previous comment that quantum systems are characterized by a wavefunction. Actually, this is one possible representation of the system which is especially suitable for position space descriptions. A more general (and abstract) representation is given in terms of a set of states which correspond to the possible measurement results, called eigenstates. A general state of a quantum system consists of a superposition of eigenstates, in such a way that, when you measure it, you have a given probability of getting each possible result. These probabilities are expressed in the weights with which each eigenstate enters the superposition.
Now, for a single quantum particle, this superposition merely reflects the inherent uncertainty in the observable variables of the particle (position, momentum, etc..). However, a system may consist of 2 particles (or any number, actually). If you write a superposition of eingenstates referring to 2 particles, you still describe the intrinsic uncertainty of the observables, but the contents of this state may actually be much more complex than that. You are using two sets of eigenstates and, because of that, you may or may not have correlations between them. When there is a certain kind of correlation, we speak of quantum entanglement. Picturing this state as consisting of 2 separate entities is a classical notion which fails to grasp the actual physical nature of the state. From a quantum theoretical point of view, it is a single state, and any interaction with the state affects the state as a whole.
This is why, when we perform measurements on a pair of entangled particles, interacting with one of the particles seems to induce a bizarre instantaneous response in the other. At the quantum level, however, you are interacting with an inseparable system, one quantum state only. And again, before you perform the measurement, the system doesn't generally have any well defined position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc.. Upon performing a measurement, the state collapses as a whole to the measured eigenstate, and you are bound to find a result consistent with entanglement correlations if you go and measure the other particle. So, nothing points to the idea that "the polar configuration will have always been there effectively even though you didn't define it until a certain point". We don't define the polarization, we measure it, which implies interacting with the system and consequently changing it from a superposition state into a single eigenstate.