I'm going to push back on this pretty hard, because I think there's a seductive trap here that a lot of spiritually-inclined people fall into. "I do think these ancient traditions preserved intuitive understandings of reality that science is only now catching up to." This is the part I disagree with most. What you're doing is retrospective pattern-matching — taking vague, metaphorical language from the Kybalion and mapping it onto highly specific mathematical frameworks after the fact. It's the same cognitive bias that makes people think Nostradamus predicted specific historical events. The Hermeticists weren't "anticipating" quantum field theory. They were working with a fundamentally different epistemology — one based on introspection, symbolic logic, and direct experience, not empirical measurement and falsifiable prediction. And honestly, I think this kind of comparison actually undersells both traditions. Hermeticism doesn't need quantum physics to be valid. It works — or doesn't — on its own terms. I use tarot in my decision-making every day, and I've written here before about how I think casting symbols "into the void and seeing what it pulls back" is a real phenomenon. But that's a psychological and phenomenological claim. It doesn't require wave function collapse to be true. The Copenhagen interpretation you referenced? That's about measurement apparatus interacting with quantum systems. It's a massive, debatable leap to go from "observer effects exist at the subatomic level" to "the universe is fundamentally mental." John von Neumann did argue for consciousness causing collapse, but that's a minority position in physics, not settled fact. Treating it as though it validates "The All is Mind" is building a house on sand. What actually interests me here is why this comparison feels so compelling. I think it's because we're desperate for legitimacy. Mysticism got kicked out of the respectable intellectual building a few centuries ago, and now we keep trying to sneak it back in through the science door. I get the impulse. But I'd rather be honest about what I'm doing — which is engaging with symbolic systems that shape my perception and decision-making — than pretend I'm doing physics.