I like most on here have followed your thinking at some point, but have had to ditch our intuition along with comman sense and a good part of our sanity when we

I like most on here have followed your thinking at some point, but have had to ditch our intuition along with comman sense and a good part of our sanity when we found out we were lost down the rabbit hole after schrodinger's cat ate our breadcrumbs. An observer changing the outcome is a very real repeatable experiment with non wavey results. https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-s... It's similar to the problem that has been highlighted here by OP, to quote the artical I posted "Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect’s experiments shows that a particle’s wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity. "