A first problem with your argument, Vlatko, is semantic. How do we define what is an observer and what is not? A broad definition includes any individuated entity in relation to another. The relationship includes reciprocal observation. But you might not agree with that. Because you are exclusively using the perspective of quantum micromechanisms. They unfold with mathematical impassiveness. For them, there is, in fact, no observer. There is no physicist either. This perspective actually denigrates your own existence, or at least displaces it into a place that is not physical, since it is impossible to see it appear from quantum equations.
That is to say, your approach makes classical physics and macroscopic reality an illusion. It does not contradict quantum mechanics because it is not, in fact, real. A mere appearance. But for whom? Who observes this appearance? Without double vision you cannot understand the whole world.
Agree with is perspective. It rightly treats observers as physical systems among others, without assigning them any special status. Entanglement—not observation—is what shapes quantum outcomes, and coherence loss explains classical emergence. The insistence on observers often adds unnecessary confusion and misrepresents the actual physics.
A first problem with your argument, Vlatko, is semantic. How do we define what is an observer and what is not? A broad definition includes any individuated entity in relation to another. The relationship includes reciprocal observation. But you might not agree with that. Because you are exclusively using the perspective of quantum micromechanisms. They unfold with mathematical impassiveness. For them, there is, in fact, no observer. There is no physicist either. This perspective actually denigrates your own existence, or at least displaces it into a place that is not physical, since it is impossible to see it appear from quantum equations.
That is to say, your approach makes classical physics and macroscopic reality an illusion. It does not contradict quantum mechanics because it is not, in fact, real. A mere appearance. But for whom? Who observes this appearance? Without double vision you cannot understand the whole world.
I wish you good luck and a brilliant career as a plumber.
Agree with is perspective. It rightly treats observers as physical systems among others, without assigning them any special status. Entanglement—not observation—is what shapes quantum outcomes, and coherence loss explains classical emergence. The insistence on observers often adds unnecessary confusion and misrepresents the actual physics.
Interesting. Since you mentioned Dr. Marletto, do you think that a constructor theory framework could provide valuable insights to these problems?