We do not know what to make of quantum mechanics. There does not seem to be a conceptual model that humans can grasp only a mathematical theory that gives reliable predictions and measurements.
One thing is certain, the newtonian mechanistic determinism model of particles inert and insensate is wrong. For me this brings materialism as a metaphysic into serious question.
quantum "particles" behave more like quantum events which change their behavior based on observation methods. Reality at its core appears to be stochastic (probablistic not deterministic) and ultimate reality seems interconnected and aware of other events in a quite fundamental not mechanical way.

For me this supports the view that reality is more events in relation than particles in motion.

There are many ways to interpret quantum physics and I think it is reasonable to look at things as events.

So, it is a matter of how one wishes to view the process that is going on. It is hard to distinguish the object from the event that created it. An event becomes an object and the object then is involved with a new event. And it goes on.Rich

We perceive "reality" as both events and substances. One might ask which of these is primary reality? I am a process philosophy supporter so for me events (occasions or moments of experience) are primary (becoming not being). I can conceive of substances as enduring or stable events but I can not conceive of events coming from stable changless substances. Traditionally sustances are given metaphysical priority over events. I think quantum mechaninc calls this materialist assumption into question.

The notion that these things represent different events or substances instead of different methods of perceiving the "same"reality is an illusion.

My own perspective is not to treat some things as illusions and others as not, since once I entertain such a thought it becomes problematic which of the illusions are illusions. My own preference is to treat every experience as equal and then attempting to understand what are the differences and what are the similarities.
Rich

Lets us go back to basics here for a moment. Do you draw any conclusions from quantum behavior especially quantum pairing and entaglement?
For me quantum mechanics implies:

1.That Laplace like determinism in not only impossible in practice but dead wrong in theory as well. The laws of nature are stochastic not deterministic. There are ordered possiblities and some degree of indeterminism and freedom at the most fundamental level.

Although matters are still subject to some measure of dispute, quantum mechanics makes statistical predictions which would be violated if some local hidden variables existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify those predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated, though many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the question. (See Bell test experiments.) It is possible, however, to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment. An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.

2. That materialism as understood in the newtonian mechanistic view of the world is wrong. That the concept of "matter" as particles inert (with no awareness of their relations to other things except by mechanical interaction) is wrong. That quantum behavior is more event like than particle like although particle like behavior is observed as the result of some events and some types of observations. Insensate matter is somehow "aware" or "perceptive" of what happens to another particle separated in space. This perception occurrs at speeds faster than light. There is something profoundly wrong with the particle, object, substance, material view and newtonian mechanistic view of reality.

...Insensate matter is somehow "aware" or "perceptive" of what happens to another particle separated in space. This perception occurrs at speeds faster than light.

"We performed a Bell test over more than 24 hours between two villages separated by 18 km and approximately east-west oriented, with the source located precisely in the middle. We continuously observed two-photon interferences well above the Bell inequality threshold. Taking advantage of the Earth's rotation, the configuration of our experiment allowed us to determine, for any hypothetically privileged frame, a lower bound for the speed of the influence. For example, if such a privileged reference frame exists and is such that the Earth's speed in this frame is less than 10-3 times that of the speed of light, then the speed of the influence would have to exceed that of light by at least four orders of magnitude."

Here is an interesting study that was published on this 'perception', last year:

Access : Testing the speed of |[lsquo]|spooky action at a distance|[rsquo]| : Nature