Was a statement I made a few days ago in the forums. It was somewhat... attacked at first, but then things settled down. As I explained, in Copenhagen, before things are measured they are assumed to exist in a slur of possibilities. Now, if there was no particle before observation, then this presents a paradox. I said, there has to be a particle there in the first place to measure it! In this lecture, Penrose says very many similar things towards 16:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fXfh-IFMSs He says, the normal procedure is not worrying about any exact states, just summing over the possible histories doesn't really explain or solve anything. ''You're supposed to have some state, even if you don't know what it is.'' This in my mind, is a better assumption that saying it isn't there, even though you haven't looked at it. Or to say, that it takes on real attributes, just because something has observed it. Even before decoherence, a system of particles must still be a system of particles regardless of whether their wave functions have collapsed. But this is the wave particle duality problem, what is really fundamental, the wave or the particle? Some, like Penrose who calls himself a ''dualist,'' believes it is both, ie. The problem is saying there is a particle in nature, instead the system acts like a wave until something observes it. The wave however is just as real as the localization of the field. I don't think it is both, but rather there is no true separation of system from field, in such a way you can even define an independent state called a particle.
