Why Physicalism is Wrong

[Noax]

I should not have used it directly, but instead have pointed to the logical consequence of it. My bad.

Not sure what you are talking about, but the logical consequences of any interpretation don't serve as proof of anything without proof of the interpretation.

So Copenhagen makes no claim that any real change occurs to a system when an observation of it is made. Any interpretation that claims this seems not to take into account that observation is an effect, not a cause.

I couldn't disagree more!
The act of measurement/observation affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement/observation.
So, from our perspective, it looks like the particles "know" if they are observed or not. Bohr realised that, and spoke the famous words. And if that is not truly shocking, what is?!

You are not describing Copenhagen here. No change to the particles occur. What collapses is our knowledge of it, which is to be expected after an observation. Really, I think you are thinking of the Wigner thingy, except Wigner himself abandoned it some time after co-publishing it due to its inconsistencies. That interpretation says that real change to the systems occurs with conscious measurement being a cause, not an effect. Copenhagen is a local interpretation. Wigner interpretation is not, by its very nature. I look at a distant object (a star say) and that act causes it to be in some state several years ago. It violates a lot of natural principles, but that is to be expected for an interpretation that lies outside of methodological naturalism that serves as the foundation of modern scientific methodology.

And I don't make stuff up.

You make up empirical facts to fit your whim. That is the pooma interpretation I had mentioned.

I draw logical conclusions, that the science community refuses to do themselves.
Somebody has to do it. I'm somebody!

You misrepresent valid interpretations of things, and present a cherry picked interpretation as fact. That's the woo part that you share with several others including the author of the article on which this thread is based.
The science community is quite aware of logical conclusions of each interpretation. They are to be used as evidence against the interpretation in question, a necessary process to see if they hold up. Copenhagen holds up because it posits no real change upon observation, although its opponents frequently assert that it does (as you are doing) to demonstrate its inconsistency.

[QuantumT]

*

Your reply is very confusing, 'cause you mixed my words with yours. I'll let you fix it, then I'll reply. Won't be till friday though.

Again proving my point that a consciousness is not needed to trigger your 'wave' collapse.

Proving it in your mind maybe. And why not just settle at that? Good riddance!

[Arising_uk]

Proving it in your mind maybe. And why not just settle at that? Good riddance!

Try re-reading the thought experiment I proposed. Then re-read the responses you made and explain why my conclusions were in error. Although I doubt you will as logic and reason are not applicable to your metaphysics are they.

[QuantumT]

*

Friday I'll be back!

[Atla]

So no, it it's not true that events at subatomic level depend on an observing mind. That's the woo interpretation.

Well yes and no. "Non-physical mind causes physical collapse" is quantum woo of course, and the article is nonsense. The Neumann-Wigner is really out of the question. The mind is made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe and has no "magical effect".

Reality does however appear to "collapse" in correlation with the QM observer, whatever the QM observer is (unknown, but it's probably a metaphor for the nondual nonlocal looping phenomenon imo). Reality appears to us as observer-dependent.

Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not." (Feynman, Richard).

He's right, in the grander scheme of things, nothing is actually "changed", but from an everyday (or rather non-multiversal) point of view it seems to us like there would be changes. For example we can stop the time evolution of well-isolated quantum systems simply by constantly observing them; we can sort of freeze them in time. Freezing a part of the universe in time is a very real physical happening, it appears as a "change" to us.

No new "groundbreaking knowledge" needed. It is well known that "observation" in the context of QM can be made by a device, with complete absence of human intervention.

This is the other major quantum woo. According to QM, a device is a collection of atoms also in superposition, unless it is collapsed in correlation with a QM observer (unless the device itself is a QM observer as well). But otherwise a device has no "magical effect" either, and this is also demonstrated experimentally. A device usually is merely an extension of a human QM observer that lets us see very deeply into the microscopic structure of matter, and this was demonstrated very neatly in the DCQE experiments.

The Copenhagen non-interpretation was designed to skip having to deal with philosophical issues about QM, and unfortunetly it indeed thwarted our philosophical understanding for nearly a century.

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

The skipping here is done using the magical expression "registering decisions". Registering how exactly. The data, information that is "registered" is made of the same stuff as everything else too, and is in superposition unless correlated with a QM observer. So this is a non-explanation.
Also, the idea of "possible" and "actual" stuff is really getting old now, it's time to concede that the "wavefunction" or what is represented by the "wavefunction" is probably physically real.

According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process (Bell, John (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy.

Here you can see again how standard QM skips the issue. You don't always have to literally look at the recorded data to become entangled with it. Maybe there is a "shared collapsed state" on this planet, maybe it's quite different from that, it's hard to tell, but the data recorded by a device can get entangled with your "collapsed reality" without you literally looking at the data. It can leak into / get entangled with the environment in other ways, it merely has to be available to you.

[Noax]

"Non-physical mind causes physical collapse" is quantum woo of course, and the article is nonsense. The Neumann-Wigner is really out of the question. The mind is made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe and has no "magical effect".

Careful. That last statement is an unproven assertion and one that the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation denies. Yea, I think it is bunk as well, but those that support it treat that dubious interpretation of QM as incontestible.

Reality does however appear to "collapse" in correlation with the QM observer, whatever the QM observer is (unknown, but it's probably a metaphor for the nondual nonlocal looping phenomenon imo). Reality appears to us as observer-dependent.

I'd say measurement dependent, since measurements have been going on long before something came along that qualified as capable of observation. And there are interpretations that are completely independent of measurement, and not all of them deny collapse.

No new "groundbreaking knowledge" needed. It is well known that "observation" in the context of QM can be made by a device, with complete absence of human intervention.

This is the other major quantum woo. According to QM, a device is a collection of atoms also in superposition, unless it is collapsed in correlation with a QM observer (unless the device itself is a QM observer as well). But otherwise a device has no "magical effect" either, and this is also demonstrated experimentally. A device usually is merely an extension of a human QM observer that lets us see very deeply into the microscopic structure of matter, and this was demonstrated very neatly in the DCQE experiments.

How does this make woo of what Conde Lucanor posted? There were no humans involved in those experiments except to gather the statistics after many test runs. They name them Alice and Bob and maybe Victor, but the experiments are not run with humans playing those roles. Yes, humans are unavoidably entangled anyway, but to suggest that the experiment would gather different results if humans were extinct seems rather far fetched.

Yes, the experiment is done in a way (not in a box) that makes entanglement with all humans and everything else on earth unavoidable, but that doesn't in any way make the role of the human more significant than the role of a rock. The question is: when exactly does some state of superposition collapse to some non-superposition state. Each interpretation answers that differently.

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137

The skipping here is done using the magical expression "registering decisions". Registering how exactly. The data, information that is "registered" is made of the same stuff as everything else too, and is in superposition unless correlated with a QM observer. So this is a non-explanation.

This can't be right. There are interpretations (most of the collapse ones) where the measurement by the device collapses the wave function. Adding an 'observer' of the device does nothing since the device is not in superposition of having measured both results.
As for interpretations that leave the device in superposition of having measured both results, then the QM observer also remains in superposition upon observing the device reading. Again, the observer adds nothing to the picture. Observation is an effect, never a cause, except in the epistemological sense: Observation causes the observer to know something previously unknown, which is no different in classical physics. It isn't a QM stance.

Also, the idea of "possible" and "actual" stuff is really getting old now, it's time to concede that the "wavefunction" or what is represented by the "wavefunction" is probably physically real.

Agree, but I find myself gravitating towards the relational interpretation where things are real only in relation to something. So there is collapse in relation to me, or to a rock, and so I as a conscious observer am no more special than the rock. The moon exists in relation to a rock, but it doesn't exist in relation to hypothetical planet X that is 10 billion light years away. So the moon isn't real in a non-relational sense since it is not real to everything. I am not asserting this. It just seems to best explain the things that have always seemed unexplained to me.

You don't always have to literally look at the recorded data to become entangled with it. Maybe there is a "shared collapsed state" on this planet, maybe it's quite different from that, it's hard to tell, but the data recorded by a device can get entangled with your "collapsed reality" without you literally looking at the data. It can leak into / get entangled with the environment in other ways, it merely has to be available to you.

QuantumT seems to differ, but this is absolutely true, as I mentioned above about this being unavoidable. Bricking shut the room doth not a Schrodinger's box make. But calling it 'becoming entangled with' implies that I am in superposition myself, which only some interpretations support, including Copenhagen when they put the unwitting lab assistant in the box with the cat.
The lab assistant (Wigner's conscious friend) is entangled with the cat that is both dead and alive. His observation does not collapse the wave function since he's on the wrong side of the Heisenberg cut. As an epistemological interpretation, this actually makes sense.

[Atla]

Careful. That last statement is an unproven assertion and one that the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation denies. Yea, I think it is bunk as well, but those that support it treat that dubious interpretation of QM as incontestible.

I disagree, I think modern neuroscience has proven the identity of "mind" events and "physical" events beyond reasonable doubt. And no "special stuff" was found in the head.

I'd say measurement dependent, since measurements have been going on long before something came along that qualified as capable of observation. And there are interpretations that are completely independent of measurement, and not all of them deny collapse.

I use measurement and observation synonymously in the context of QM. "QM observer" doesn't necessarily imply something alive or anything "special" as in non-physical, but still there seems to be a certain kind of structure involved imo.

How does this make woo of what Conde Lucanor posted? There were no humans involved in those experiments except to gather the statistics after many test runs. They name them Alice and Bob and maybe Victor, but the experiments are not run with humans playing those roles. Yes, humans are unavoidably entangled anyway, but to suggest that the experiment would gather different results if humans were extinct seems rather far fetched.

Well, not humans, QM observers. But why far fetched, that is exactly what QM is saying. You haven't realized this so far. Without observers there are no results at all selected. Reality is probably nonlocal so it doesn't matter how "far" the observers are from the experiment.

Yes, the experiment is done in a way (not in a box) that makes entanglement with all humans and everything else on earth unavoidable, but that doesn't in any way make the role of the human more significant than the role of a rock. The question is: when exactly does some state of superposition collapse to some non-superposition state. Each interpretation answers that differently.

The "role" of the QM observer is significant, from our point of view. That's the whole point, denied by all the woo interpretations. It doesn't necessarily have to be human / part of a human / doesn't have to go or extend through a human though, or life in general for that matter.

This can't be right. There are interpretations (most of the collapse ones) where the measurement by the device collapses the wave function. Adding an 'observer' of the device does nothing since the device is not in superposition of having measured both results.

Yes these are these woo interpertations that avoid trying to make sense of QM. Not very interesting. Why would a collection of atoms suddenly behave differently if we call them devices?

As for interpretations that leave the device in superposition of having measured both results, then the QM observer also remains in superposition upon observing the device reading. Again, the observer adds nothing to the picture. Observation is an effect, never a cause, except in the epistemological sense: Observation causes the observer to know something previously unknown, which is no different in classical physics. It isn't a QM stance.

The QM observer also remains in superposition but that's not how it appears to us from our point of view. Observation in QM is neither an effect nor a cause; there are only correlations. "Knowledge" in the usual sense isn't really involved either, correlations are.
At one end we have collapsed stuff and on the other we have stuff in superposition, but they are all part of one and the same world. Most interpretations just skip the in-between part and declare two behaviours; but they are two manifestations of one and the same behaviour.
I think QM observation and classical observation can't really be compared.

Agree, but I find myself gravitating towards the relational interpretation where things are real only in relation to something. So there is collapse in relation to me, or to a rock, and so I as a conscious observer am no more special than the rock. The moon exists in relation to a rock, but it doesn't exist in relation to hypothetical planet X that is 10 billion light years away. So the moon isn't real in a non-relational sense since it is not real to everything. I am not asserting this. It just seems to best explain the things that have always seemed unexplained to me.

I couldn't follow you here. QM is always relational (from our point of view at least), but these relative-to-each other things are also all part of the same world; I can't make sense of the idea that a part of it doesn't exist / isn't real in some sense.

implies that I am in superposition myself, which only some interpretations support

Let's be honest here, any interpretation that doesn't support this, is basically saying: ok I give up, let's come up with some random idea as the explanation.

[Noax]

I think modern neuroscience has proven the identity of "mind" events and "physical" events beyond reasonable doubt. And no "special stuff" was found in the head.

Those that differ would differ, citing mere correlation between what neuroscience detects and mind processes, and if they posit "special stuff", it's undetectablity is probably why it is special. Modern neuroscience in fact makes the same assumption you do, but that doesn't stop it from being an assumption.

Anyway, I have a hard time parsing your opinion from the science behind it. What is your preferred interpretation, and are you open minded to some other interpretations?

"QM observer" doesn't necessarily imply something alive or anything "special" as in non-physical, but still there seems to be a certain kind of structure involved imo.

It needs to imply something, because you use it a lot in this post, and things that are not QM observers are dismissed by calling them a collection of atoms. This seems inconsistent since in the end, if neither of us posits a supernatural observer role, then the QM observer is just a collection of atoms as well.

Reality is probably nonlocal so it doesn't matter how "far" the observers are from the experiment.

You mean an observation causes nonlocal changes to reality? Physicists consider that a significant mark against an interpretation, but not disproof. Only Copenhagen and Wigner interpretations seem to have a role for a QM observer and also non-locality, but I think you say you don't support those. I'm trying to guess your view here.

The "role" of the QM observer is significant, from our point of view. That's the whole point, denied by all the woo interpretations. It doesn't necessarily have to be human / part of a human / doesn't have to go or extend through a human though, or life in general for that matter.

OK. Making life special is inconsistent, I agree. Life could not have originated without life to collapse a massive wave function into something that was life. I'm still trying to figure out what you consider to play the role of 'QM observer' that is not just an atom collection.

The QM observer also remains in superposition but that's not how it appears to us from our point of view. Observation in QM is neither an effect nor a cause; there are only correlations. "Knowledge" in the usual sense isn't really involved either, correlations are.
At one end we have collapsed stuff and on the other we have stuff in superposition, but they are all part of one and the same world.

Sounds only a little like Everett interpretation, but there is no collapse there, so no QM observer role at all, and it is local, and you say otherwise, and it posits one wave function, but multiple real worlds, and you say one world here. OK, maybe not Everett, but what else has observers in superposition?

Agree, but I find myself gravitating towards the relational interpretation where things are real only in relation to something.

I couldn't follow you here. QM is always relational (from our point of view at least), but these relative-to-each other things are also all part of the same world; I can't make sense of the idea that a part of it doesn't exist / isn't real in some sense.

Article in the usual place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationa ... _mechanics
It is explained there better than I can. Distant planet X (10 BLY distant, when the universe appears 13.8 BY old) doesn't exist to me because I haven't collapsed its wave function even to the point where the planet formed yet. Similarly, Earth and the moon are nonexistent to them, and were they to train their perfect telescope on our location, light arriving there in billions of years from here and now would not find Earth here because the wave function of this area right now, relative to planet X, has pretty much a zero probability of something like Earth forming, let alone having the moon or life or humans.

implies that I am in superposition myself, which only some interpretations support

Let's be honest here, any interpretation that doesn't support this, is basically saying: ok I give up, let's come up with some random idea as the explanation.

You seem to be dismissing all but a couple interpretations. That doesn't sound like being honest, it sounds like bias. Dismiss them if they are self-inconsistent, but they're not 'random ideas' if they are consistent.
I don't consider myself to be in superposition. That doesn't fit with any possible notion of what 'I' am. Am I guilty of littering yesterday? Yes and no if I'm in superposition. Am I alive? Yes and no. The view degenerates into zero knowledge about ones self, and I need an identity to function. The relational view defines reality in relation to what matters to one collapsed state, and the other worlds are not real to me since they don't concern me. The cat in the box is in superposition in relation to the guy outside the box, but is not in superposition to the cat. The dead cat does not exist in relation to the live one. This neatly solves the cat scenario without positing this Heisenberg cut.

[Atla]

Those that differ would differ, citing mere correlation between what neuroscience detects and mind processes, and if they posit "special stuff", it's undetectablity is probably why it is special. Modern neuroscience in fact makes the same assumption you do, but that doesn't stop it from being an assumption.

No. Reality is as far as we can tell, nondual. Physical is the same as mental. Anyone who is claiming otherwise and is talking about two things, is making a wild, extra assumption, not me.

Anyway, I have a hard time parsing your opinion from the science behind it. What is your preferred interpretation, and are you open minded to some other interpretations?

I use a modified/extended MWI-like interpretation. I'm open minded but only the MWI-type makes some sense to me, it's the simplest one and what we get when we take the equations literally. I see the others as mostly just random stuff people have come up with.

It needs to imply something, because you use it a lot in this post, and things that are not QM observers are dismissed by calling them a collection of atoms. This seems inconsistent since in the end, if neither of us posits a supernatural observer role, then the QM observer is just a collection of atoms as well.

Of course the QM observer is a collection of atoms as well.

You mean an observation causes nonlocal changes to reality? Physicists consider that a significant mark against an interpretation, but not disproof. Only Copenhagen and Wigner interpretations seem to have a role for a QM observer and also non-locality, but I think you say you don't support those. I'm trying to guess your view here.

There are only correlations; nothing is really caused or changed in the grand scheme.

I see nonlocality as inherent to QM though; how could it not be? I mean it's experimentally verified.

OK. Making life special is inconsistent, I agree. Life could not have originated without life to collapse a massive wave function into something that was life. I'm still trying to figure out what you consider to play the role of 'QM observer' that is not just an atom collection.

I think QM observer is a metaphor for nondual nonlocal multiversal loops which are from our perspective how reality is structured. It's not an extra or special thing; it's more like apparent behaviour; wavefunction collapses too are apparent. But this is how it works or looks like from our perspective.
But you need to become a nondualist and also adopt a modified MWI interpretation and then turn it inside out so to speak to understand it. Western philosophy is basically dualistic so all Western QM interpretations so far have been more or less wrong. I'm not interested in sharing more about this mainly because of the implications. I already said too much, I don't want to discuss deep philosophy on the internet.

It is explained there better than I can. Distant planet X (10 BLY distant, when the universe appears 13.8 BY old) doesn't exist to me because I haven't collapsed its wave function even to the point where the planet formed yet. Similarly, Earth and the moon are nonexistent to them, and were they to train their perfect telescope on our location, light arriving there in billions of years from here and now would not find Earth here because the wave function of this area right now, relative to planet X, has pretty much a zero probability of something like Earth forming, let alone having the moon or life or humans.

But nonlocality ignores the speed of light.

You seem to be dismissing all but a couple interpretations. That doesn't sound like being honest, it sounds like bias. Dismiss them if they are self-inconsistent, but they're not 'random ideas' if they are consistent.

I can say that the unicorn god collapses wavefunctions and this interpretation is self-consistent. But what are the odds of there being a unicorn god.
Plus I do think that most interpretations don't actually agree with available evidence.

I don't consider myself to be in superposition. That doesn't fit with any possible notion of what 'I' am. Am I guilty of littering yesterday? Yes and no if I'm in superposition. Am I alive? Yes and no. The view degenerates into zero knowledge about ones self, and I need an identity to function. The relational view defines reality in relation to what matters to one collapsed state, and the other worlds are not real to me since they don't concern me. The cat in the box is in superposition in relation to the guy outside the box, but is not in superposition to the cat. The dead cat does not exist in relation to the live one. This neatly solves the cat scenario without positing this Heisenberg cut.

This version of you is this version of you; why would you want bring in other versions that you have no access to? Besides the "I" is illusory anyway.

[Noax]

I use a modified/extended MWI-like interpretation. I'm open minded but only the MWI-type makes some sense to me, it's the simplest one and what we get when we take the equations literally. I see the others as mostly just random stuff people have come up with.

You must modify it a lot then, as I pointed out earlier. There is no QM observer in MWI. My view is quite similar to MWI except in ontology. Sure, there are other viewpoints (worlds say), but we don't exist to each other. Actually we do, but undetectably so. Superposition is never fully eradicated, and one can always interfere with another close world, but after a point the terms can safely be evaluated separately.
Yes, the lack of additions makes those views preferable. No collapse, Heisenberg cuts, immaterial causes, hidden variables, etc. All needless complications when the Schrodinger's equation is enough.

I see nonlocality as inherent to QM though; how could it not be? I mean it's experimentally verified.

No it isn't. MWI is a local interpretation (until you apparently modified it), as is Copenhagen when taken as the epistemological interpretation that it was designed to be. A few others. QBism??? I don't even know what that is, but it maintains locality.

It is explained there better than I can. Distant planet X (10 BLY distant, when the universe appears 13.8 BY old) doesn't exist to me because I haven't collapsed its wave function even to the point where the planet formed yet. Similarly, Earth and the moon are nonexistent to them, and were they to train their perfect telescope on our location, light arriving there in billions of years from here and now would not find Earth here because the wave function of this area right now, relative to planet X, has pretty much a zero probability of something like Earth forming, let alone having the moon or life or humans.

But nonlocality ignores the speed of light.

Yes, but relational is a local theory, so no action at a distance. Everett also denies action at a distance, but you seem to modify it enough to need nonlocality.

[Arising_uk]

... Western philosophy is basically dualistic so all Western QM interpretations so far have been more or less wrong. ...

You've obviously not read much Western Philosophy if you hold this opinion.

By an' large Kant still has the field here and he says you are doing metaphysics about the noumenon and as such you are just making it up as much as the religious do as we can't know the thing in-itself.

[Dontaskme]

... Western philosophy is basically dualistic so all Western QM interpretations so far have been more or less wrong. ...

You've obviously not read much Western Philosophy if you hold this opinion.

By an' large Kant still has the field here and he says you are doing metaphysics about the noumenon and as such you are just making it up as much as the religious do as we can't know the thing in-itself.

You can’t know it because you Are IT

Why put another head on it?

It is the ocean doing the waves, the waves don’t do anything.

I don’t think you understand. You may only think you do.

Thinking, is the wrong I

.

[Arising_uk]

You can’t know it because you Are IT …

There you go again, talking about what we cannot.

Why put another head on it?

I don't know, why do you do this?

It is the ocean doing the waves, the waves don’t do anything. …

The ocean doesn't do anything either, it's the Moon.

I don’t think you understand. You may only think you do.

What is there to understand?

Thinking, is the wrong I

I'd not normally agree with such a sentiment but in your case I concur.

[QuantumT]

Not sure what you are talking about, but the logical consequences of any interpretation don't serve as proof of anything without proof of the interpretation.

Who said anything about proof? I'm talking logic. And I never claimed to have proof. I've said (in another thread) that the amount of circumstantial evidence could be considered as proof, but not that it actually is proof!

You are not describing Copenhagen here. No change to the particles occur. What collapses is our knowledge of it, which is to be expected after an observation. Really, I think you are thinking of the Wigner thingy, except Wigner himself abandoned it some time after co-publishing it due to its inconsistencies. That interpretation says that real change to the systems occurs with conscious measurement being a cause, not an effect. Copenhagen is a local interpretation. Wigner interpretation is not, by its very nature. I look at a distant object (a star say) and that act causes it to be in some state several years ago. It violates a lot of natural principles, but that is to be expected for an interpretation that lies outside of methodological naturalism that serves as the foundation of modern scientific methodology.

The particle itself does not change. But it's behaviour does! And that change in behaviour is a mystery! And pointing to instruments as the explanation to it, is a poor choice. One that ignores the delayed quantum eraser experiment results totally!

You make up empirical facts to fit your whim. That is the pooma interpretation I had mentioned.

I just point to logic.

You misrepresent valid interpretations of things, and present a cherry picked interpretation as fact. That's the woo part that you share with several others including the author of the article on which this thread is based.
The science community is quite aware of logical conclusions of each interpretation. They are to be used as evidence against the interpretation in question, a necessary process to see if they hold up. Copenhagen holds up because it posits no real change upon observation, although its opponents frequently assert that it does (as you are doing) to demonstrate its inconsistency.

I don't represent anything. I just point out logic reasons and probable explanations.
You seem to want to make me an enemy of proper science. I am not! My foundation is the same as yours. I just apply logic and probability to what we already know. People can discard it, like you do, no problem

[QuantumT]

Again proving my point that a consciousness is not needed to trigger your 'wave' collapse.

It's called the wave function, because the particles not observed, are behaving like waves. Upon observation they behave like particles should do. Observation demands an observer. The delayed quamtum eraser experiment has shown, that instruments are not enough. They need to be read. The reader is counscious. Ergo the collapse needs consciousness.