Do you think the Schrödinger equation from quantum mechanics is a true description of reality?

Yes it does. The measurement problem is solved at https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06375 , by applying the equation to the components of any measuring device and assuming that the resulting perturbations of a quantum system have a random component associated with a lack of precise knowledge of the device's components' wave functions. The Born Rule is thereby derived, not an independent postulate.

Kant argued that we can know nothing of noumena - things-in-themselves, but only phenomena - our perception of them.

Scientists, especially physicists, seem to have trouble with this.

(We all seem to have trouble with this. The very word "phenomena" has come to be equated with things-in-themselves rather than our perceptions.)

The Schrödinger wave function is ALL ABOUT the observer. It describes where (and when) a particle/wavicle/thingy MIGHT be observed. The moment the thingy IS observed, the wave function "collapses" - only one possibility remains.

It's not about reality - things-in-themselves - but about our perception of them.

This was, in fact Schrödinger's whole point with his cat-in-a-box thought experiment - that it's ridiculous to think of "reality" - things-in-themselves - in such terms.

But scientists, and particularly physicists, (and, in fact, most of us) really don't LIKE the idea that we can know nothing of things-in-themselves.

Quantum physicists would do well to take Kant, and Schrödinger, seriously.

I am of the opinion that some version of the wave function (maybe not the Schrodinger wave function directly, but a QED or standard model wave function, of which the Schrodinger version can be an excellent approximation) is a physically real thing and not just information. This implies that some sort of objective collapse of this wave function will someday be discovered (and if it is not, then I'm wrong).

I also think that measuring devices and even observers (people) would ultimately need to be modeled quantum mechanically to get the complete understanding of the world that we physicists want. I think modeling measurements as interactions between the things we measure and our measurement apparatus, showing how they become entangled, and then how decoherence at least partially de-entangles them, has been a big step in the right direction.

I look forward to seeing whether this new approach of modeling relativistic reference frames quantum mechanically leads to any new insights. I think it has a lot of potential.

Yes observing matters. The nan-gate experiments with light electrons in slitted barriers changed into waves the particles travel in a wave front package, when shone through a clear glass barrier collapsed the now changed Waves shortened the time it took to hit a target. Any barrier will do, gravity for example could do the same thing. Imagine light waves collapsing over and over again, faster and faster. Then later they added a set of tracks with targets and electrons chose which target to hit purely by being observed.

1. J A Wheeler-'probabilities are human invention 'no question-no answer'

2. In order to obtain information, i. e .to reduce Shannon's entropy of the observer, work must be done.

That was the punishment of Adam-' from now on you'll eat bread covered by your sweat'( Genesis)

3. It has never been proved that Universe is a closed system and not the part of Information space, made of concepts of different complexity and dimensionality

4. The transfer of information between different parts of Information space is not limited by the speed of light in our Universe, that could explain entanglement

The Schrödinger equation bites off a chunk of our collective, agreed-upon experience and provides very useful explanatory power in that domain. It was a revolution compared to what was known before.

It makes no pretense to explain everything, and it exposes new areas to inquiry - new potential ways of describing our experiences, which have, as yet not settled upon any agreed-upon interpretation.

(The article to which this discussion is attached emphasizes a relational approach, which is one, still contentious, and probably a minority interpretation. But that wasn't the question.)

How do we translate the Schrödinger picture into our every-day macroscopic physical experience? Math and physics have thus far not found a way. What law declares that there *must* be a rigorous, objective translation between these (or any other) languages?

1. What about the Wheeler's delayed choice experiment? The hazy time boundary is light years, right?

2. "..myriad possibilities"? Why not infinite? Like what Cantor said...it should be

3. Why it's complex valued?

4. Why delta E times delta t - both positive; delta p times delta x - they can be negative... a big difference...

As a physical idea, the term "reality" is meaningless--it's a truism that "reality" is different for every different being. "Reality" in that sense is a mental construction (a state of mind?) that has no connection with physics. I suppose one could say that the equations of physics describe "physical reality," but that just seems like trying to hide the problem within a two-part term. The problem is that the term "reality" can't be defined in a noncircular way--i.e., without using the term "real" (or an equivalent term like "exist"), as in this from Merriam Webster:

1: the quality or state of being real

2a(1): a real event, entity, or state of affairs

his dream became a reality

(2): the totality of real things and events

trying to escape from reality

b: something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

It would be interesting to study mentality scientifically (the way the physical universe is studied) to determine it's fundamental properties and how they interact in the production of mental phenomena. If theorists could unify physical theory and a theory of mentality, would that be a "real" theory of everything? Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has the first little idea about how to go about studying mentality.

The act of observation changes the physical world because at that moment, it enters our consciousness. I.e. whatever is introduced into the the field of observation, was previously in the unconscious. However, it is not possible to understand this through the limitations of thinking, because thinking by definition introduces boundaries, when there are in fact, none within the whole of consciousness, other than those related to where we direct attention.

Does the observers behavior change if the observer is observed?

I think it is very much the same as when Newton states his ('mathematical') laws describing the movement of the sun, planets etc.

The description is clear, feels 'obvious'.

But ..

I read some time ago that Newton himself already said something like,

'Action at a distance, utterly rediculous'.

But still a very accurate description.

Those laws, still only describe.

But do not give the slightest explanation how that is actually working.

Same - as far as I think - applies here.

How it ('Schrodinger') really works, we have no idea.

Just some formulas describing.