Chap wrote:But this article also underlines the debt we owe to good science journalists - the increasingly less common kind that actually understand the science, and can point out what it means without making a nonsense of it.
To be fair there are still some who subscribe to an influence of consciousness upon the outcome (Wigner being a famous example changed his stance on this) for instance:
A poll was conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011 using 33 participants (including physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers). Researchers found that 6% of participants (2 of the 33) indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)". They also mention that "Popular accounts have sometimes suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation attributes such a role to consciousness. In our view, this is to misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neuma ... rpretation
I am going out on a limb to suggest that the two mentioned represented the philosophers.
