I’m not much inclined to discuss philosophy or the nature of reality  as I often find myself tangled up in my own words and ideas. Consequently, I don’t have any grand conclusions about quantum realities and perceptions other than to say that how we approach the nature of reality is a collective exercise. I don’t mean that we all agree to some particular version rather, we engage with each other in various and, at times competing, ‘conversations’ out of which emerges a complex worldview which is forever dynamic. A little bit like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. In a very simplified form, it is impossible to measure  both a particle’s position and its momentum  with any accuracy. The more information you have about one of these properties, the less you know about the other.  There is an addition to this principle called the Copenhagen Interpretation which suggests that you can know the past position and momentum of a particle but not the present position and momentum.

The discussion about nanotechnology is really part of the larger discussion of science and technology, which in turn, is contained in a discussion about the nature of reality, perception, and our relationships with each other and this planet. As for that dynamic conversation I mentioned earlier, it includes business people , activists, scientists, writers (fiction and nonfiction), pop culture purveyors (movies, etc.), government policy makers, the general public, and others. As well, individuals may be members of more than one of these groups.

It is possible to look into the past and determine world views for distinct regional areas but trying to determine a single over-arching worldview for the planet is not possible. It may exist but it is impossible for the observer to know it.