Why say that results depend on sombody

*deciding* to take a measurement? Why not say, 'when a measurement apparatus is interfering with the wavefunction'? I think the following makes more sense, and is a fairly orthodox way of viewing things:

- Macroscopic objects cannot be in a superposition of quantum states.
- A measurement apparatus is any object which takes a quantum state and renders it macroscopically observable.
- Therefore the wavefunction must collapse when 'observed', or a macroscopic object would be in a superposition of states.

But, this picture is overly simplistic, it's just the way I thought of it as an undergrad. As I said before, there are interpretations of QM without wavefunction collapse so if you don't like it you could always choose one of those :P

## Bookmarks