Recent content by questionsyes

In context of the OP assertion, no. As an abstract function, yes. And I would argue that this is what was "sent out ~13 billion years ago"

"It" doesn't exist.

I think it's true to say that in all instances within this setup, there will not be an interference pattern, regardless of any decision to view the data. The fact that data is available at all indicates a classical interaction. And it is this that collapses the wave function, not your...

I disagree that this is not the domain of physics, indeed, i would have thought it's importance to quantum physics somewhat a mute point. But I'm willing to stop posting on the subject if others wish it so. My definition of "human observation" would be - An intelligible interpretation...

My question wasn't to imply observation was necessarily an act of measurement, merely that "human observation" was a conclusive requirement of experimentation.

But you agree that "human observation" is required for completion of the exercise?

But in order for such a discussion to take place, doesn't there at some point have to be "human observation"?

If there is no "human observer", how does one acquire knowledge of the experimental results?

Well ok, i'll start. I'm a layman so the math is well over my head, a bit like the moon, unless I'm not looking at it, in which case it doesn't exist, until i look at it, and then it does, and did when i wasn't looking at it. Didn't it?

Presumably that would qualify as "hearing" it? Has acausality been ruled out?

So a tree falls down and no one hears it, did it make a sound? The math says not(?) It's impossible to prove it did(?) Should we "just stop worrying and calculate"? ...or has the tree just hit me?