Understanding the Measurement Problem - Is this a good analogy? I have asked the question in a better way: Does Vantage Point explain Bell's Inequality's Experimental Results?
This question may remain closed.

It can be head-melting to conceive of many worlds existing simultaneously, especially when they are considered to actually physically exist.
As an physics hobbyist, I think of wave function collapse in the following way…
If I am in the forest, and I hear a gunshot, I know the direction that the sound came from. I "observe" it say, coming from directly in front of me.
In actuality though, the sound passed as a spherical wave in all directions.
My "measurement" of this sound wave, gives me the perception of the sound travelling linearly towards me.
I don't "collapse" all the sound into a sound laser though just by "observing" it. Rather I perceive only the sound that reaches my observation point. I don't need to generate multiple versions of the forest or myself to account for the likelihood of hearing a gunshot from other directions. I just simply "was not there" to observe it.
Also, if I know or find out about another observer in the forest, I can make predictions about what they would hear.
Similarly, when I (as a quantum object) interact with the wave function of some experiment I am observing, I only perceive that interaction in a manner that is compatible to my "observation point".
To be clear, I am not saying that the spherical movement of sound is some kind of "hidden variable", or even that my "observation point" is a hidden variable. Rather I am saying that the observation itself is an illusion. The "sound laser" does not exist. I am not "collapsing" the wave function to gain insight about the true nature of the quantum object, but rather to gain some information about my "observation location". I believe, when interpreted in this way, splitting the universe is not required.
Not being an expert in the field, I would love to hear from those that could point to where my analogy breaks down.
 A: First of all, I am also not an expert and as a student I am probably missing the "philosophical" insight a real expert might have when it comes to explaining the weirdness of quantum physics, but I have heard some qm lectures and think the analogy doesn't quite work out.
The idea of a wave function is that the state of a quantum object is in superposition of many possible states, so we "add up" (or integrate) all the possibilities, where each of them is weighted with probabilities of the system actually showing that specific state in a measurement. To be more precise, this superposition is then considered "the state" of the system. The different contributions to this superposition are typically what's called eigenstates to some observable and depend on the preparation of the system.
Observing a wave function actually changes it, so it undergoes an abrupt change from a superposition of a big range of states to a superposition of only the states that are compatible with your measurement/observation. This is called collapse of the wave function. Its discontinuous nature is what many hypotheses try to explain differently. Mathematically you just accept the sudden change of your state vector.
In your example I'm missing the notion of a state and it's collapse. Maybe you could associate the source of sound in your situation, let's say a drum hidden somewhere in the forest, with some state. If you don't hear it, then it can be possibly everywhere, you must describe it with a superposition of all the places in the forest. If you hear the drum beat, the state ("everywhere") collapses to a superposition of all the places in some direction that you estimate based on your hearing.
