@deepthought saidI didn't write that, you did. You said outside physics, I did not. That is exactly what I took issue with. You are dismissing one in favor of the other and have not explained why.
In your post on page 1 you wrote:"However, if there is an effect that depends on the absence of an observer then it is outside physics."The only effects we can measure are ones in the presence of a ...[text shortened]... ian sense, it just means that the theory cannot be falsified making measurements of that prediction.
How do you know it is not the other way around? If an effect depends on an observer then perhaps that is outside physics. Observing changes the result, right?
"Observing does not change the results, it creates them, if there were no observer there would be no results - the results being a collection of measurements taken during the experiment.
No results?That is absurd.
If you cannot get a result unless it is observed how do they know there is a difference? If that were true we would not be having this conversation.
If the results are created by observing that is just as bad. If there is a different result from not observing you have the same problem, which one do you trust? That is what I asked you. Which one do you trust? If there are different methods of observing then you should point that out. Don't give me that "outside physics" crap. You are interjecting unnecessary jargon to complicate things. Which one do you reject and why?