Reality

[andrewducker]

Trying again, because the previous wording was causing problems.

[Poll #157777]

Edit: I'd be interested in justifications for (3) from anyone that voted that way.

Comments

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

And if so, by what exactly?

(and what do you mean by 'observed'?)

[derumi.livejournal.com]

Well, what can you say is real, unless there's something or someone around to experience it? In current quantum theory, things must be observed in order to exist.

[andrewducker]

A quick browse of google groups determines that this view isn't actually held by many physicists. It's one of those "pop-sci" things which has spread too far.

The waveform collapses under certain conditions, including interaction with events above a certain size level. People happen to be one of them. But you can capture quantum events on photographic film just as well.

[derumi.livejournal.com]

Yes, but considering how many scientific and historical "truths" are disproven later, perception still has a lot to do with reality. As far as we are concerned.

Re:

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Not as far as I understand quantum theory. IIRC, you are on about the Copenhagen Interpretation? It's only one of the options, which wax and wane in popularity. There are other explanations of quantum phenonema and even those that require a collapse of the wave function don't always require an 'observer'. Of course one could argue about what counts as an 'observer'.