I never got around to asking you a question you've probably been asked many times, but I'll take this opportunity if you don't mind. Math was always a weak point for me.

Is "pure" mathematics, meaning, mathematics that does not apply to the world (via physics, for example), something invented or discovered?

"The square of the wave function, Ψ^2, however, does have physical significance: the probability of finding the particle described by a specific wave function Ψ at a given point and time is proportional to the value of Ψ^2." (Britannica) — jgill

I think that's misleading because at the subatomic, quantum scale, absolute location and time don't exist for the model, instead an always approximate certainty about the position/momentum value. So it is more accurate to say Schrodinger's wave function doesn't represent the chances that a point particle is in a particular location, but rather the range of spacetime within which a quantity of energized matter is amorphously active. The matter within a quantum reference frame is not fundamentally a particle, a point in time, but rather some kind of perpetually fluxing, diffuse wavicle fused in a mathematically fuzzy way with what surrounds it. Encyclopedia Britannica is simplifying and reifying the model more than is necessary.

Is "pure" mathematics, meaning, mathematics that does not apply to the world (via physics, for example), something invented or discovered? — Manuel

There's a whole thread on this and, predictably, there are different views on this.

Is "pure" mathematics, meaning, mathematics that does not apply to the world (via physics, for example), something invented or discovered? — Manuel

Most practicing mathematicians at one time or another spend a short period contemplating this question. Then they move on and do mathematics. My thoughts are that some is invented and some is discovered. For example, I recently "invented" an attractor transform for certain functions. Then I set about trying to discover its features. (of course, it may have been invented before - that happens not infrequently in math)

Some philosophers like to ponder the question you posed. Most math people don't care. :cool:

Encyclopedia Britannica is simplifying and reifying the model more than is necessary. — Enrique

And they should know better! :gasp:

(The good and bad threads should be combined under the rubric, Physics Jabber.)

Is "pure" mathematics, meaning, mathematics that does not apply to the world (via physics, for example), something invented or discovered? — Manuel

This is a perennial topic in philosophy of maths and metaphysics. Platonic realism contends that number is real, i.e. not the product of the mind, but can only be grasped by a mind. So it's saying that abstracta are real. Naturalism has big problems accomodating that. Check out the SEP article Platonism in Philosophy of Maths. I think @jgill is correct, that some aspects are discovered - the natural numbers would be a natural! - but, having the capacity to count and perform mathematical operations, then there are all kinds of imaginary number systems that can be devised.

A physical observer is an objective instrumental observer not a person. — magritte

'An instrument' is a device constructed by an observer to capture data. Until that data is interpreted, then it doesn't constitute information - the difference between 'data' and 'information' is precisely that.

:ok:

Seeing the resume is experimental evidence.

And how do you think they got said features? If not by actually knowing what they're talking about (with maybe a few rare exceptions)? — khaled

Experimental evidence of what?

If I send you my resume with all known PhD diplomas that have ever existed, would you just accept the result of this experiment?

And how do we even know what PhD's diplomas exist you may wonder? Luckily I have a PhD in the history of PhD's on my resume, so you trust my expertise, question settled.

But then, being clever and insightful, you begin to wonder how I was able to accumulate over a million PhD diplomas. You scroll down and see "time travelling arts" and immediately jump to the only available conclusion based on the "experimental evidence" so far, which is I'm an immortal time travelling scholastic.

Still, you want to be sure and case may yet be closed. You see some of my PhD's have been issued recently, rather than centuries in the past or future as with most of them. So, being astute and careful, you call the institutions in question and ask around. What do you get? Pathetically useless anecdotes that don't prove anything at all. You demand experimental evidence to resolve your question! The dean of deans at the end of the line tells you to stop wasting their time and hangs up. You scream into phone that you're just trying to get at the experimental evidence that correctly distinguishes experts from non-experts in the same way we would expect to be satisfied in distinguishing electrons from protons, upon which the entire modern world is built, you mad person! But you hear only silence. You are forced to conclude that these institutions labeled "university" don't take knowledge seriously and can't be trusted.

You start pacing in your room. If there is no experimental evidence that can actually be carried out to distinguish between expert and layperson on a given subject, the whole epistemological foundation of global society may collapse. Bridges may collapse due to improper stressed concrete supervision, planes would fall out of the sky due to mad idiots making critical systems dependent on a single sensor, trump would be president! pandemics unleashed and place us all in lock downs and see the harrying day Westerners wear surgical masks in public like dirty Asians! The damages of an apocalypse of a world run by non-experts would have no realistic bounds; the icecaps could melt, species could go extinct at a rate not seen for tens of millions of years, we could even irrationally start killing the bees with chemicals they really don't like for all we could predict.

You pick up the phone, "give me the president of the United States of America". "President, smart and stable genius at that, speaking". You slam the phone down in horror: It's already begun. You turn on the TV to see the date; it's 2016, you've gone back in time, which doesn't surprise you as you have experimental evidence time travel exists, and you don't doubt the results of your experiments. Suddenly you see a shadowy figure in the corner holding some sort of exotic novelty cane. "It's you," you say. "Yes, it's me Khaled, Boethius from the forum -- which I'm sure you now realize is also the actual historical Boethius who discovered the secrets of time travel by taking a lot of drugs and talking with inter-dimensional muses -- and while you've been confident that experts have some real empirical experimental evidence establishing their expertise, rather than a historical social convention resulting in expertise labels without experiments available to confirm those labels really signify what we want them to signify, and have slept peacefully in your bed confident experts have organized everything in a reasonable way and you have no need to worry or even look our your window -- you need but focus on the extremely narrow area of expertise other experts have shoved your face into -- the world has actually not gone that way, and I've brought you back to 2016, to show you how it all began; the start of the destruction of your civilization because mad fools believed critical thinking could be delegated to experts and is not a collective social responsibility that succeeds or fails together, without any experiments available to convince us at any given time which is actually happening. "Now," I say seriously, "you have two choices: take the red pill, a massive complimentary dose of LSD, and I bring you back to ancient Greece and we do a bunch of orgies together, or take the blue pill, and I bring you back 2021, bring you up to speed on recent history, and you can try to work things out. Blue pill is also a complimentary dose of LSD; you want to do some LSD Khaled, cause that's why I'm here; most of my million PhD involve the psychedelic arts actually". You slam both pills into your mouth. After a long pause of appreciation, "so you're beginning to learn," I tell you.

:cool:

If I send you my resume with all known PhD diplomas that have ever existed, would you just accept the result of this experiment? — boethius

If none are forgeries, yes.

Sigh.

When someone tells you electrons are attracted to other electrons, how do you know they're wrong? Or do you just not? Since my crazy idea that socially bestowed titles are pretty good indicators of expertise is so crazy.

When someone tells you electrons are attracted to other electrons, how do you know they're wrong? — khaled

I'm pretty sure they're wrong.

Based on experiments I've actually seen.

Ok, why?

Sorry I didn't add the obvious implication of experimental evidence.

Experiments you can do yourself.

Can you put two electrons next to each other yourself? I doubt it. You must have been told they do.

How did you learn that two electrons repel each other? Wasn't it some physics textbook somewhere in highschool? What made you trust that one?

Can you put two electrons next to each other yourself? I doubt it. — khaled

I'm not sure when science became just "trust us", but that just so happens to be the exact same epistemological framework of the Catholic church, which science fans are so proud of over throwing with "experiments you can do yourself to convince yourself of what the answer really is rather than just believe what the churchmen tell you".

Yes, things I haven't actually done, like put two electrons together, I have less confidence in than things I have done.

Now, for technology, it's only an argument that supports a "science" used to create it because you can run experiments on the technology yourself. I can run calculations on a computer that satisfy me of it's information processing power and information density.

There's a lot you can do yourself.

You're also forgetting the important step of independent groups confirming results, increasing our confidence we aren't being fooled (experiments "anyone can do" if they want and report to us confirmation or refutation; we can then evaluate their credibility as we wish, but there's no second experiment that actually tells us their credibility ... other than more groups we trust more doing the same experiment, or then ourselves if it means that much to us), rather than just believing experts.

What you can't do is propose an experiment that distinguishes between expert and non-expert.

Of course, maybe independent groups are secretly colluding to fool us. Ultimately, my trust in the reports of others is indistinguishable from my trust in humanity as a whole. Some level of scheming I find implausible, but not due to some experiment I've run but because I don't get "the feeling" the people around me are that duplicitous and I have "the feeling" humanity as a whole is similar. Of course, there's definitely schemes, based on the same feelings about people around me, I find completely plausible, like pretending "experts" backup the idea of selling people a lot of opioids. Essentially by definition I cannot actually verify by experiment exactly how trustworthy people are, I'm forced to make due with guessing and keeping an eye on things. Unless you have such an experiment, then the situation is that the purpose of an expert is that we trust them; it cannot be some experiment that tells us to or not and even less some expert of experts.

Yes, things I haven't actually done, like put two electrons together, I have less confidence in than things I have done. — boethius

But you have some confidence in them. Where does that come from? All the evidence you have that they do is what was written in your physics textbook. It's almost as if you have the absolutely insane idea that experts generally are trustworthy. Could you imagine someone unironically thinking that mere social titles make someone more trustworthy! :rofl:

Some level of scheming I find implausible — boethius

What the hell was that novella then?

You're also forgetting the important step of independent groups confirming results, rather than just believing experts. — boethius

I'm pretty sure the people in these independent groups happen have PhDs most of the time....

Essentially by definition I cannot actually verify by experiment exactly how trustworthy people are, I'm forced to make due with guessing and keeping an eye on things — boethius

Right, and what do you look at when you make your guesses? Does someone having a PhD or Doctorate improve your chances of trusting them in any way? That would be crazy! It's a paltry social title after all!

But you have some confidence in them. Where does that come from? — khaled

I just told you: independent groups I have (for not experimental reasons) reason to believe are really independent and have run the same experiments and confirmed the same results; 2. interacting with technology that must be doing "something" and proposed explanations coherent with that and implausible that (again not due to experimental evidence by my feelings of humanity's trustworthiness) has been made up to gaslight me.

What the hell was that novella then? — khaled

One can always imagine some more complicated scheme fooling oneself in every way. It's an old philosophical exercise. Have you not heard of Descartes? I'm not suprised if you haven't; obviously he has nothing to do with your version of science.

Right, and what do you look at when you make your guesses? Does someone having a PhD or Doctorate improve your chances of trusting them in any way? That would be crazy! — khaled

You haven't bothered to reflect on anything I have said. I've made it clear that expert (to me) is the result of historical process and convention, and not a result of experiment. People get PhD as part of a historical process, not by getting in some box that verifies they are indeed made of "PhD substance" that is distinguishable from "layperson substance". Because I have this view, the credibility of PhD's is related to the political institutions that produce them, and I can doubt more an "expert" in China saying the CCP is like, the bestest or then an "expert" in Nazi Germany saying their race is superior to others. If, however, there's a political system I trust more that also produces experts, I trust those experts more.

proposed explanations coherent with that and implausible that (again not due to experimental evidence by my feelings of humanity's trustworthiness) has been made up to gaslight me. — boethius

Right. And all I was saying is that it’s implausible that most experts (from trustworthy institutions that have no motivation to lie about this) saying that consciousness is not required for quantum wave collapse, are gaslighting us. This isn’t even a political issue. There is no reason to lie here. Do you agree with that much?

Then you seemed to me to be dismissing all that on the basis that an expert is indistinguishable from a layperson. Which is absurd. You distinguish them with basically all the same qualifiers. PhD, good, political corruption, bad and so on.

I think there's a lot of confusion introduced when the word 'consciousness' is injected into this conversation. 'Observation' is a conscious act, carried out by a person. But that doesn't mean 'consciousness' can be regarded as a causal factor in an objective sense. There is nothing called 'consciousness' which is affecting the outcome. Rather the outcome is something that is measured in the context of the total system, and that includes the act of observation. Including ‘consciousness’ seems to me trying to put the observing subject on the side of the observed objects.

Right. And all I was saying is that it’s implausible that most experts (from trustworthy institutions that have no motivation to lie about this) saying that consciousness is not required for quantum wave collapse, are gaslighting us. This isn’t even a political issue. There is no reason to lie here. Do you agree with that much? — khaled

Yes, do even know this? Where's the data? And if so, what experiment allows us to distinguish between a "real expert" and not.

As for the subject matter, if someone talking about "science" doesn't have an experiment to backup their claim, it doesn't matter anyway. What you should say (even if you had the above data) is "most experts speculate consciousness is not needed for wave collapse".

But if it's just speculation, who cares?

History (which produces experts), if you bother to look at it, show us "experts" mostly agreeing on a lot of speculations at any given time. Most experts, until recently, nearly all "speculated" the expansion of the universe was slowing down, the question was just how much. Then someone (and it doesn't matter if they're an expert or not) provided evidence that the expansion is actually speeding up. Other groups then independently confirmed this ... maybe; more actual experiments, actually independent maybe needed to increase our confidence to certainty (there could be something seriously wrong with distance measurements, considering the conflict in measuring the Hubble constant may mean we're missing something profound). For now however, "experts" mostly speculate the universe is indeed accelerating in it's expansion.

Point is, what the experts mostly speculated before and what they mostly speculate now doesn't matter, what matters is experiment, independent verification, and the trust (based on feeling) that we place in such verifying experiments (that also extends to ourselves as part of this vaguely trustworthy humanity, as we can also do an experiment ourselves, but do it wrong).

Until recently a lot of "experts" speculated the LHC would give evidence of super-symmetry particles, like they did for previous accelerators; and with good reason, after a good run of discovering new particles with every bigger accelerator there wasn't good reason to assume it would stop. Point is, someone working on theories where the LHC doesn't discover anything more than the Higgs before the LHC results, was not "wrong" because many experts speculated otherwise. Speculation of experts doesn't resolve issues, otherwise no scientific breakthrough would ever happen (as they are almost always fringe ideas when they are first thought of, and would be discarded the moment they are thought of due to "contrary expert speculation").

what experiment allows us to distinguish between a "real expert" and not. — boethius

Not an experiment. But you manage to do it. I manage to do it in the same way. So does everyone I think.

As for the subject matter, if someone talking about "science" doesn't have an experiment to backup their claim, it doesn't matter anyway. — boethius

Which is precisely why physicists at large do not think consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse.

What you should say (even if you had the above data) is "most experts speculate consciousness is not needed for wave collapse".

But if it's just speculation, who cares? — boethius

Huh? No that's not how this works. In the sciences we don't add unnecessary assumptions. If some madman wanted to convince the world that every time photosynthesis happens a pink elephant is miraculously created on a certain planet that is too far away for us to see (assume this is consistent with all our laws of physics), we usually reply "Ok but what's your evidence". He can't then reply "You don't have evidence it ain't happenin, you just speculatin it ain't".

That's what you're doing here. Someone says "consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse". People ask "Where is your evidence". He doesn't have any. So people rationally should conclude that it isn't required. Since we seem to be able to explain everything without it. You can't just say "that's just speculation". No, that it is required is the speculation that needs proving. Because we don't need consciousness to explain quantum phenomena.

Point is, what the experts mostly speculated before and what they mostly speculate now doesn't matter, what matters is experiment, independent verification, and the trust (based on feeling) that we place in such verifying experiments (that also extends to ourselves as part of this vaguely trustworthy humanity, as we can also do an experiment ourselves, but do it wrong). — boethius

Great. And there hasn't been an experiment that shows consciousness is required for quantum collapse. And there are countless problems that would occur if it were required. Therefore it is reasonable to believe it isn't required. That's why experts say it isn't required.

History (which produces experts), if you bother to look at it, show us "experts" mostly agreeing on a lot of speculations at any given time. Most experts, until recently, nearly all "speculated" the expansion of the universe was slowing down, the question was just how much. Then someone (and it doesn't matter if they're an expert or not) provided evidence that the expansion is actually speeding up. Other groups then independently confirmed this ... maybe; more actual experiments, actually independent maybe needed to increase our confidence to certainty (there could be something seriously wrong with distance measurements, considering the conflict in measuring the Hubble constant may mean we're missing something profound). For now however, "experts" mostly speculate the universe is indeed accelerating in it's expansion. — boethius

This isn't a similar scenario. In this case, both hypotheses are consistent with our experimental data and no new assumptions are added. Either the universe is expanding or it's contracting, in either case, our laws of physics don't change. We can't tell yet, we need more evidence. Someone found evidence. Now we can tell, great.

But in the case of the consciousness requirement, it's purely extra. We don't need it to explain anything. Either the consciousness is required or it isn't, however we have everything we need to explain quantum phenomena without consciousness. Adding consciousness would complicate our models for no reason. And we don't have enough experimental data to add them. Nevermind that adding them can be problematic. It would be exactly like saying that photosynthesis has pink elephant materializing properties. Why the extra complication when we can explain everything without pink elephants? EVEN IF pink elephants and consciousness requirements are consistent with our laws of physics? (Pink elephants are an example of mass being created out of nowhere so they do violate them. And consciousness requirements violate them too as they imply that without a human measurement, any quantum event remains unresolved)

Point is, someone working on theories where the LHC doesn't discover anything more than the Higgs before the LHC results, was not "wrong" because many experts speculated otherwise. — boethius

But was unreasonable.

Speculation of experts doesn't resolve issues, otherwise no scientific breakthrough would ever happen (as they are almost always fringe ideas when they are first thought of, and would be discarded the moment they are thought of due to "contrary expert speculation"). — boethius

No it doesn't, but it determines what's reasonable to believe. Of all the things experts have at first thought of as a fringe idea not worth pursuing very very few end up being correct. Most are just that, fringe ideas not worth pursuing. It's unreasonable to bet on the small chance. Especially since I doubt you do that in most areas.

Some people think the earth is flat. It could be the case that it is a massive conspiracy carried out for no reason. Do you give this fringe idea serious consideration? No. So why the fringe idea that consciousness is required?

'Observation' is a conscious act, carried out by a person. — Wayfarer

That's not what's meant by "observation" in the copenhagen interpretation. Just from a skim of wikipedia:

"A common perception of "the" Copenhagen interpretation is that an important part of it is the "collapse" of the wave function.[3] In the act of measurement, it is postulated, the wave function of a system can change suddenly and discontinuously. Prior to a measurement, a wave function involves the various probabilities for the different potential outcomes of that measurement. But when the apparatus registers one of those outcomes, no traces of the others linger."

"Because they assert that the existence of an observed value depends upon the intercession of the observer, Copenhagen-type interpretations are sometimes called "subjective". This term is rejected by many Copenhagenists because the process of observation is mechanical and does not depend on the individuality of the observer."

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."

I trust the sources I'm reading more than that article. Wikipedia is a very weak source in such matters, because it reflects the culture in which it is edited. Note the qualification in the article itself 'Different commentators and researchers have associated various ideas with it. Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as "the Copenhagen interpretation" by different authors.'

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory. — Heisenberg

I still say that even if the measurement is made by a machine, the machine is a scientific apparatus and augments the human senses. The 'registration' is the key point. If that registration was made by a system that was never observed by a human, then that result would never be known, and so would be irrelevant.

One of Wheeler's essays says this:

The dependence of what is observed upon the choice of experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy. It conflicts with the view that the universe exists "out there" independent of all acts of observation. In contrast Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us. In struggling to make clear to Einstein the central point as he saw it, Bohr found himself forced to introduce the word 'phenomenon'. In today's words, Bohr's point - and the central point of quantum theory - can be put in a simple sentence. "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon." ...A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it has been brought to a close by an irreversible act of amplification such as the blackening of a grain of silver bromide emulsion or the trigerring of a photodetector. In broader terms, we find that nature at the quantum level is not a machine that goes its inexorable way. Instead what answer we get depends on the question we put, the experiment we arrange, the registering device we choose. We inescapably involved with bringing about that which appears to be happening. — John Wheeler, Law without Law

There's a very interesting article on Wheeler which explores some of these ideas, here https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/does-the-universe-exist-if-were-not-looking.

If that registration was made by a system that was never observed by a human, then that result would never be known, and so would be irrelevant. — Wayfarer

Point is, the quantum wave will collapse in that case. That is the contention here. It is what (pretty much) all the scientists think.

Also from your article:

"Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real."

"The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. (I doubt that's conscious)When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being (I don't think you can get more explicit than this), is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen."

All wheeler is saying is that humans can collapse the wave function. That's not the contention here. The contention is that you want to say they're the only way it collapses. Even the guy in your own article doesn't think so.

I trust the sources I'm reading more than that article. — Wayfarer

Good, then trust this one that you linked me. It says consciousness is not required.

If you read a few posts up, I said the introduction of ‘consciousness’ into the discussion - by you, I think - was the cause of confusion.

How is it introduced by me? You say that a conscious observer is required. Not just any measuring apparatus. In the end, the quantum event must be measured by a conscious agent.

You also say that this is some evidence of idealism:

It doesn't mention consciousness as such, but says that the observer has a role in the experimental outcome, which calls into question the purported 'mind-independent' nature of the result. — Wayfarer

If any ol physical thing can collapse the wave function, then it's not our mind doing it is it? At least, there is no reason to think so. So it IS mind independent. But measurement dependent (and measurement is, again, not done by a conscious agent necessarily). That's what your article says too.

If a rock can collapse the wave function then what's likely collapsing it in our case is our eyes, not our minds. So this is no evidence of idealism. You need it to be the case that minds/consciousness are doing something for it to be evidence of idealism. But there is no experimental evidence that that is the case. And nothing you've cited so far supports it being the case. And there are plenty of problems if it were the case.

Be that as it may ‘The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse.’ So ask yourself the question, why is that something to avoid, and why does the alternative propose that the universal wavefunction is ‘objectively real’?

Be that as it may — Wayfarer

So, we can agree that none of what you've said so far offers evidence for idealism?

So ask yourself the question, why is that something to avoid — Wayfarer

Because theories that have it collapse are infinitely more complicated. I already gave you a video about them. Most of them have issues or pose new questions. The MWI is the one with the fewest scientific issues (as in, it poses no new questions) I'm pretty sure but is the hardest to swallow otherwise.

The "consciousness is required for wave function collapse" interpretation has a boatload of issues. Such as: Why? Or: What exactly counts as a conscious agent? And many many more.

You make it seem like scientists are all getting together in a circle thinking "No, we must not let idealism triumph, release the MWI!" When really it's more like: The MWI is the most straightforward simple explanation, and scientists are trying more complicated models in an effort to preserve the world being one world. Which you could argue is unscientific.

Then again, I'm not certain it's WITHOUT issues. But I know it's one of the theories with the fewest issues. And the "consciousness is required" one is one of the ones with the most.

and why does the alternative propose that the universal wavefunction is ‘objectively real’? — Wayfarer

Alternative to what? In all cases the universal wave function is "objectively real" as in it exists. You wanted to propose that consciousness is required to collapse it. That is a very fringe view without supporting evidence and a lot of problems. Some people propose it collapses due to a pilot wave or due to gravity and so on and so on. Maybe you mean in this case the wave function is not "objectively real" because not all alternatives exist and instead, only one exists in the end though which is undecided.

Some other people simply throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, wave function doesn't collapse". The latter have the simplest explanation, that's why it's even on the radar. Because it's simple though seems ridiculous.

And in this case "objectively real" seems to fit the bill. The theory proposes that all the alternatives exist. Sounds pretty "objectively real" to me. Because here you don't even need to measure anything for it to "collapse into existence", all the alternatives exist, measured or not. (Well, they're all measured, just in different worlds!)