Mostly.
> also, how popular is this theory in the physics community?
Not very. The fashionable way to think about this stuff is something called "decoherence" which really amounts to the same thing but phrased in different terms.
so if i were to do further research into this, I would use the keyword "decoherence"?
also not being a physicist, could I naively think this would be a good candidate for the "theory of everything"?
Decoherence, relational quantum mechanics, quantum information theory, the Von Neuman measurement model -- all of these turn out to be the same thing.
> also not being a physicist, could I naively think this would be a good candidate for the "theory of everything"?
No, the "theory of everything" refers to the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity. Completely different topic.
just to confirm my interpretation, its saying that:
- fundamentally the universe is governed by quantum mechanics
- classical physics doesn't truly exist
- the classical physics we see and intuit can be explained by entropy (information theory) of the quantum state
- measurement and entanglement are the same in the sense that both imparts "information" into the system. this in effect acts as a "filter", an example of which is the double-slit experiment where the waves are "filtered" to particles when being measured
- our conscious mind is a classical construct so its naturally difficult to intuit quantum laws
is that mostly correct? also, how popular is this theory in the physics community?