“Also, there’s no assumption that things operate the same way when they’re not observed. It’s a requirement that they do so. Otherwise A?A !”
Not going to get into the theology, and generally agree with your assessment of the site, but your above statement is factually incorrect. I’m guessing you have studied QM much. The reality is that it is provable (and has been proven) that at the QM (and in some cases if set up properly macro) level, A(observed) does NOT equal A(unobserved). The double slit exeriment is the classical (pun intended) experiment that shows this. It’s very counter-intuitive stuff. Also google for the double slit experiment using star light - great example of the distemporal nature of this QM effect. PS It has been a while since I took my graduate level QM classes and I don’t use this stuff much anymore, so apologies for inacuracies in terminology.
Oops, “have studied” should be “have not studied.” That’s not a dig, either. There’s tons of stuff I haven’t studied, either. Just too much information out there to have studied it all...
"your above statement is factually incorrect.
No.
" The reality is that it is provable (and has been proven) that at the QM (and in some cases if set up properly macro) level, A(observed) does NOT equal A(unobserved)."
A is still A, whether it's sleeping, or not. Behavior does not determine the essence of something. Behavior simply arises out of the essence. A=A always. The statement A≠A is never true.
"The double slit exeriment is the classical (pun intended) experiment that shows this. It’s very counter-intuitive stuff."
A is described by the wavefunction Ψ, or [Ψ>. The particular state of A at some time is described by the complex conjugate of the wave function (Ψ*, or <Ψ] times the product of some relevant linear operator (ξ) times the wavefunction (ξΨ, or ξ[Ψ>). A is represented by (ξΨ, or ξ[Ψ>), not (Ψ*ξΨ, or <Ψ]ξ[Ψ>).