I'm neutral on the subject of if there are non-observational interactions. Though I ask again, are you aware of any observations that do not involve interactions?
Edit: I should also point out, that I don't believe an observation necessarily requires a human, mind, or intelligence.
AHH, I think I see what you have misunderstood. I am not saying all interactions are observations, rather that observations are a subset of interactions, hence uncertainty.
Furthermore I think it would be more useful to say that the wave function only collapses when it is actually necessary to the interaction rather than when it interacts with 'us'. Unless you can provide a counterexample. Privileging observations made by humans reeks of mysticism in my opinion and is the cause of a lot of the misunderstandings about quantum physics among laypeople.
Do expand, please. It has been a while since I have studied this seriously. Do you have any examples of observations that don't involve interacting with the system?
The universe is under no obligation to be understandable to the bits of it that can think. In many ways it's a wonder we've got as far as we have.
We have such devices, unfortunately they tend to use electrons instead (electron microscopes). We also have devices that just work by measuring the electromagnetic field (atomic force microscopes). Again though, to measure the field you have to interact with it, so you can't do it immaculately.
Electrons are especially hard because they are so incredibly light yet intensely charged compared to everything that can actually interact with them.
When talking about particles, the interaction very rarely involves actual contact, as that tends result in some manner of combination. Two electrons for instance don't really bounce off each other, they just get close, interact and then diverge. If a photon 'hits' an electron it gets absorbed and a new one is emitted. Look up Feynman Diagrams if you want to see some detail to this. I don't think you need any deep knowledge to benefit from looking at them, they are really quite an elegant way to visually show the mathematics.
It's not just the discomfort it causes to the user, it's how high quality, non-dissolving paper fucks the sewer system for everyone.
" - How far is your house? - Oh, it’s just 120"
FTFY
It's because to observe something you have to interact with it. Dealing with particles is like playing pool in the dark and the only way you can tell where the balls are is by rolling other balls into them and listening for the sound it makes. Thing is, you now only know where the ball was, not what happened next.
In the quantum world, even a single photon can influence what another particle is doing. This is fundamentally why observation changes things.
Both are based on the idea that someone is going to read your cover letter and form an opinion of you based on it.
I don't think you are going to get a lot of it unsolicited cover letters, and if you are applying for a specific position tailored is probably better than generic (assuming it gets read and they don't just feed your resume into a keyword hunting machine).
'Grateful for any position you think I would be suitable for.' is a rather weak ending. Might work for a church, probably not for a business. I don't think I've met a hiring manager who wanted to do anything as complex as seeing if they had a position to fit a candidate. Much easier to just post openings and let folk self select, then pick interview candidates via keyword search.
This might work better going to an agency, but honestly you should avoid agency work if you can at all help it. They largely just exist to cost more and pay employees less with less rights than you would have otherwise.
Or alternatively get walled off in their own part of the internet where they can only harm themselves.
Or at least use classical conditioning to associate the I'm wrong feeling with the impending new cool facts feeling.
Because you seem to have a problem with me saying that all observations are interactions.
Futher, if it is true that if observations are interactions, then RQM must be true, surely it goes from a fringe interpretation to just simple fact unless you can find a counterexample?
At this point, I'm not even sure I quite see what your point is supposed to be.