We speculate that observation causes the collapse of the wavefunction, but there are two primarys, wave function and observer, and one effect, collapse.

 

One might say there are three functional elements, wave, observation and collapse, but actually only the collapse itself lends any apparancy at all.

 

Observation causes collapse?

 

Collapse is observation?

 

Collapse validates both wave function and observation?

 

I think it is hard to discern the causal principle in this relationship.

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

 

I think it is.

 

I guess the wave function is considered the primary presence. If a collapse occurs an obsevation ensues.

 

Did the collapse cause observation or did observation cause collapse?

 

It depends, neither the collapse or observation exist as primary, and as consequence are simultaneous, so one could be the other by eachother's names.

 

Wouldn't we just say observation is the definition of collapse and not a seperate thing?

It still isn't.

It still isn't.

 

 

You see the simultanety of collapse/observation negates the meaning of consequence, hence observation is not removed from the wave function, but merely a collapse of it, so there is not a seperate entity.

 

I don't see how that makes 'causal' a reasonable precept.