You have not addressed the points in my post, or those made by others, explaining that QM does NOT say observers are necessary for the existence of reality. Instead you repeat yourself as if the point had not been made. That shows you are unwilling to enter a discussion.
"QM does NOT say observers are necessary for the existence of reality"
Am not sure if you are familiar with the theory, but that is exactly what it claims.This is Bells Theorem:
“If the statistical predictions of quantum theory are true, an observable universe is incompatible with the laws of local causes” John Bell I may not be an expert in these fields, but the commonness inference by the theory is the necessity of observers for existence of reality. What are the statistical predictions of Quantum Theory? The predication is that at Quantum Realm, the micro structures that manifests the Macro structure we observe as reality have probabilistic existence. Meaning that even if we apprehend what we call “matter” its very existence depends on the observer. The very nature of reality is illusory. Therefore existence require observers who make sense of it. Does the fact that reality needs us observers for it to exists too much to take? Ontologically, it may place Man as very important, as if the Universe would not be there if we did not exists, but pretty much that the crazy claim being made..............and by Science. So, when I try to bring in the reason for this by introducing Religion, am preaching. Smile, you realy are very important for existence, because you are a Child of God. He created everything for you, and He individuated the Universe in you. You are a child of the Universe, and you are a micro Universe.
David Bolm, one of the greats Physicists, claimed that the Universe is a Hologram A Virtual Phantasm. Your Mind, according to Karl Pribram is a Hologram. But then, since not many Scientists are yet to buy in this, of course we lay guys will have to wait until they agree.[/QUOTE]
No, Yazata is right. As usual.
Since you express some doubt as to my familiarity with QM, I do in fact have a working knowledge of it, having chosen to study it as my supplementary subject in my chemistry degree, though I admit this was 40 years ago. I have since become aware that a lot of people who have not studied it academically seem to have picked up erroneous notions of its significance, due to the exaggeration of journalists. I suspect you may be one such and what you have said so far supports my hypothesis.
I do not understand why you are conflating Bell's studies on the non-local effects predicted by QM (in certain very obscure and contrived circumstances) with the need for conscious observers to enable reality to exist. The latter does not follow from the former.
The probability-based view of the physical properties of particles has nothing to say about observers being necessary, either. It arises from the wavelike nature of light and matter at the atomic scale, that's all. Any good radio engineer will have an instinctive understanding of QM. In fact, probability has applications in other branches of physics and chemistry, for example statistical thermodynamics. Nothing about observers there.
But thanks for starting to engage in discussion, at last.
P.S. I've just seen Sarkus' quote from John Bell, which I repeat again, as it makes the same point I have been trying to convey to you:"
The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences."
That's it.