>>10858521you are right the weird properties of quantum particles have nothing to do with the observer. Its just that because we cant observe it, we don't know whats "really" going on when we try to press the situation.
>>10858582wrong
The "observer" rhetoric comes from the tradition of bohr Heisenberg and his group. The point of it was to get rid of the "objective reality" meme. As if we are simply just standing by and "watching" things as if we dont effect them. This applies to everything in science. Theres obviously easy examples: letting gas out of a tire to measure it, shooting photons at particles etc.... but when you look closer you realize everything NECESSARILY depends on observation. For example, a biologist that follows animals to study them effects their awareness. A really fundamental example to understand this is this: imagine an astronomer studying the patterns of the moon. You may think there is no way an astronomer "effects" the moon. But when you think about it, the second the astronomer observes the moon, its descriptive behavior is already decided to a certain extent ie there are things that we know about it simply BECAUSE we can observe it. For example, it reflects light, it doesn't exert a negative force on us etc.
In other words, there are mathematical and scientific truths about an object that are "true" simply because we can observe it, and everything is "tampered" by our observation, so it makes no sense to pretend like science is something that is "objective"
