Using Quantum Mechanics to Understand Social Media?

Eg. When we measure or otherwise observe the behavior of a crowd-based system for the sake of definition and positioning, do we inherently destroy the randomness, or destroy the probability of uncertain outcomes? Wave Function Collapse essentially tells us that if we define behavior at a point in time, we have restricted the possibilities of definition, although we may not have accurately defined with all probability the precise{sentimental] positioning of the crowd based system. It would seem, that despite our best efforts in defining[what we believe] to be accurate descriptions of crowd based behavior, that what our definitions tell us about people is not always correct. If it were correct, we should be able to simply predict or forecast with 100% accuracy, the next time/space location of the crowd. Are we able to do this? No.
Quantum decoherence suggests that when quantum systems[people] interact with their environment, we should be able to observe probabilistic, and therefore extrapolatable patterns. It appears however that what we really see, is simply the tangible manifestation of a fraction of the quantum system[people], while the vast majority of the information required to truly understand behavior remains obscured and otherwise undefined. What ends up happening is that our crowd-based system is observed through an environmental touch point which has been introduced to the environment, and has subsequently made a fundamental impact to the state of the system, in an arguably[and temporary] way. This is essential to understand in order to avoid mis-perception of behavior. When we observe our system in an environment, we are simply seeing an artificial snapshot of the system as it has been constrained to manifestation within the environment. Further, due to the constraints of any such manifestation, we are 1) artificially attempting to contain the system 2) we are incorrectly assuming that we have defined the system based on tiny[relative] amounts of information about the system. This does not in any way suggest that we should attempt to gather infinite amounts of information about the system from other mechanisms, because any observation or mechanism for measurement could at best be probabilistic, and crowd-systems are super chaotic mechanical system which are averse to being fully defined[largely due to the impossibility of having perfect information]. Where that leaves us, if we are to attempt to make meaningful use out of crowd-based system “personalities” for the sake of crafting tangible environments is this: we must understand that Decoherence will not yield precise measurements, but does help to explain the “environmental observations” that we are perceiving to be valid definitions of determinate behavior. If we consider the collective non-tangible elements of a crowd[sentiment, etc], and consider this collective to be a pure quantum system, what we can readily observe[via interactions of the pure state with the environment] is the dissipation of the pure state information across a universe of microscopic systems. Theoretically it would appear that the gathering up of information lost along a series of collisions of the macroscopic system with microscopic systems should complete our set of “perfect information” regarding the crowd-based system that we concerned with. However, these serialized collisions alter, irreversibly the state of our subject system such that information gathered from observations will no longer be able to completely define the continuously evolving state of our system.

The bottom line is: if we could gather perfect information regarding the pure state of a crowd, we could, with all certainty, predict precisely when/where[time/space] our system[of people] would converge in the future. If we could do this, we could with all certainty construct the next “most popular” social-media destination, or other means of crowd attraction and retention.