the outcome can change depending on whether it was observed

Making a measurement changes the system because the system is fragile. In the case of determining a specific state of say a moving electron, the photon interaction required to make that measurement changes the state being measured because that is what a photon-electron interaction does. For example, a photon that can make a precise measurement is so strong relative to the mass of the electron that it alters the velocity of the electron, thus a new state equation describes the motion after measurement.

So yes, but for an understandable reason. The philosophical problem only arises in the equation that described the motion before the measurement, which was indeterministic. So its not so much that the outcome was changed by observation, but that one set of probabilities existed, then, upon measurement all those probabilities except one went to zero i.e. the outcome was determined (not changed), and a new set of probabilities exists to describe the motion (or whatever is being measured).

This only speaks to the idea of determinism. It is also only one interpretation of events and is a philosophy.

the expectations of what is going to be observed, even to the point of changing what occured

The idea that an observation determines the pre-existing state of an event is only an interpretation of what the math of quantum mechanics says.

It is important to note that it is not the only interpretation and may very well not be true at all. There are many other interpretations of the math and measurements of QM that do not adopt such a philosophy.

The real truth about physics is that we have no idea how the universe works (not counting potentially hidden knowledge). There are more questions in physics than answers. The mathematical models of reality that we call "physics" are nothing more than that: models. We use these models because they have predictive power. With a specific set of conditions as input we can predict the outcome precisely, within the scope of the model. In the case of QM the "precisely" is of variable precision depending on the experimental setup of the system and input.

We take measurements to find evidence that our models work, or don't work. Where they don't work we try to come up with new models. When we create a new model we look into its math to determine if this new model says anything new about what reality is, and how we may have gotten it wrong in our other models, and where we can look to take novel measurements that elucidate a new understanding or proof of the validity of the model.

Physics is nothing more than the iterative creation of new models of reality, and measurements of reality, in an attempt to understand reality. It is never a statement of reality itself. It is never "truth". (No branch of science ever produces statements of truth.)

Things like the interpretation of QM that state that the observers decisions are a fundamental part of the reality of the system being measured are philosophical attempts to rectify the math of our models with how we think things should be, nothing more. Such ideas are not physics (models of reality), nor are they reality itself (the truth), they are just an exercise in humans making sense of "what is" based on our limited understanding and observations of it.

Personally I think this thinking is a "cop out" philosophy. It is so non-sensical and circular in its logic that it encourages people to stop thinking on the subject. "Shut up and calculate" is the mantra that arises from this interpretation and is what is taught in every QM physics class the world over. I do not adopt this philosophy of QM and think it is likely wrong, though as of now, that is an unknown and only a personal opinion. I could justify that opinion with facts, but it would still remain opinion, thus why it has persisted as long as it has.

the outcome can change depending on whether it was observed

Making a measurement changes the system because the system is fragile. In the case of determining a specific state of say a moving electron, the photon interaction required to make that measurement changes the state being measured because that is what a photon-electron interaction does. For example, a photon that can make a precise measurement is so strong relative to the mass of the electron that it alters the velocity of the electron, thus a new state equation describes the motion after measurement.

So yes, but for an understandable reason. The philosophical problem only arises in the equation that described the motion before the measurement, which was indeterministic. So its not so much that the outcome was changed by observation, but that one set of probabilities existed, then, upon measurement all those probabilities except one went to zero i.e. the outcome was determined (not changed), and a new set of probabilities exists to describe the motion (or whatever is being measured).

This only speaks to the idea of determinism. It is also only one interpretation of events and is a philosophy.

the expectations of what is going to be observed, even to the point of changing what occured

The idea that an observation determines the pre-existing state of an event is only an interpretation of what the math of quantum mechanics says.

It is important to note that it is not the only interpretation and may very well not be true at all. There are many other interpretations of the math and measurements of QM that do not adopt such a philosophy.

The real truth about physics is that we have no idea how the universe works (not counting potentially hidden knowledge). There are more questions in physics than answers. The mathematical models of reality that we call "physics" are nothing more than that: models. We use these models because they have predictive power. With a specific set of conditions as input we can predict the outcome precisely, within the scope of the model. In the case of QM the "precisely" is of variable precision depending on the experimental setup of the system and input.

We take measurements to find evidence that our models work, or don't work. Where they don't work we try to come up with new models. When we create a new model we look into its math to determine if this new model says anything new about what reality is, and how we may have gotten it wrong in our other models, and where we can look to take novel measurements that elucidate a new understanding or proof of the validity of the model.

Physics is nothing more than the iterative creation of new models of reality, and measurements of reality, in an attempt to understand reality. It is never a statement of reality itself. It is never "truth". (No branch of science ever produces statements of truth.)

Things like the interpretation of QM that state that the observers decisions are a fundamental part of the reality of the system being measured are philosophical attempts to rectify the math of our models with how we think things should be, nothing more. Such ideas are not physics (models of reality), nor are they reality itself (the truth), they are just an exercise in humans making sense of "what is" based on our limited understanding and observations of it.

Personally I think this thinking is a "cop out" philosophy. It is so non-sensical and circular in its logic that it encourages people to stop thinking on the subject. "Shut up and calculate" is the mantra that arises from this interpretation and is what is taught in every QM physics class the world over. I do not adopt this philosophy of QM and think it is likely wrong, though as of now, that is an unknown and only a personal opinion. I could justify that opinion with facts, but it would still remain opinion, thus why it has persisted as long as it has.

the outcome can change depending on whether it was observed

Making a measurement changes the system because the system is fragile. In the case of determining a specific state of say a moving electron, the photon interaction required to make that measurement changes the state being measured because that is what a photon-electron interaction does. For example, a photon that can make a precise measurement is so strong relative to the mass of the electron that it alters the velocity of the electron, thus a new state equation describes the motion after measurement.

So yes, but for an understandable reason. The philosophical problem only arises in the equation that described the motion before the measurement, which was indeterministic. So its not so much that the outcome was changed by observation, but that one set of probabilities existed, then, upon measurement all those probabilities except one went to zero i.e. the outcome was determined (not changed), and a new set of probabilities exists to describe the motion (or whatever is being measured).

This only speaks to the idea of determinism. It is also only one interpretation of events and is a philosophy.

the expectations of what is going to be observed, even to the point of changing what occured

The idea that an observation determines the pre-existing state of an event is only an interpretation of what the math of quantum mechanics says.

It is important to note that it is not the only interpretation and may very well not be true at all. There are many other interpretations of the math and measurements of QM that do not adopt such a philosophy.

The real truth about physics is that we have no idea how the universe works (not counting potentially hidden knowledge). There are more questions in physics than answers. The mathematical models of reality that we call "physics" are nothing more than that: models. We use these models because they have predictive power. With a specific set of conditions as input we can predict the outcome precisely, within the scope of the model. In the case of QM the "precisely" is of variable precision depending on the experimental setup of the system and input.

We take measurements to find evidence that our models work, or don't work. Where they don't work we try to come up with new models. When we create a new model we look into its math to determine if this new model says anything new about what reality is, and how we may have gotten it wrong in our other models, and where we can look to take novel measurements that elucidate a new understanding or proof of the validity of the model.

Physics is nothing more than the iterative creation of new models of reality, and measurements of reality, in an attempt to understand reality. It is never a statement of reality itself. It is never "truth". (No branch of science ever produces statements of truth.)

Things like the interpretation of QM that state that the observers decisions are a fundamental part of measurement are philosophical attempts to rectify the math of our models with how we think things should be, nothing more. Such ideas are not physics (models of reality), nor are they reality itself (the truth), they are just an exercise in humans making sense of "what is" based on our limited understanding and observations of it.

Personally I think this thinking is a "cop out" philosophy. It is so non-sensical and circular in its logic that it encourages people to stop thinking on the subject. "Shut up and calculate" is the mantra that arises from this interpretation and is what is taught in every QM physics class the world over. I do not adopt this philosophy of QM and think it is likely wrong, though as of now, that is an unknown and only a personal opinion. I could justify that opinion with facts, but it would still remain opinion, thus why it has persisted as long as it has.