Again, the theory would be that collapse (including the state of what is on the paper) occurs upon review of the paper.

Consciousness collapse theories are particularly interesting in the context of the quantum eraser variations of the double slit experiment.

Personally my favorite interpretations ever since reading the Asking photons where they've been paper have been ones incorporating forward and backwards wave functions like the two-state vector formalism or the transactional interpretation.

It's thought provoking to look at experimental results under different interpretation contexts, and is one of the things that frustrating in people thinking there's merit to trying to "pick a team."

Not everything needs to be a team sport, and a variety of interpretations tends to be a good thing as each prompts different types of experiments by their various supporters.

I don't think so, from how kromem words it:

(i.e. collapse occurs at the point you are reviewing the data).

The person reading the data is the consciousness, and the collapse is deferred in this case.

What I find interesting about this idea is: What if the computer were to take actions based on the data? Would the collapse occur at the point where agonist notices the effects of those actions? Does it occur when they logically link the action to the event?

I could imagine this as a sliding scale, where in one end is something obvious (reading the data, or an indicator light) and on the other end not obvious at all (a circuit heating up slightly different due to the data being stored). Both of these things have effects in physical reality (presumably), so I wonder at what point in that scale are we would call it a "consciousness collapse"?

Which is why QM interpretations are considered to be part of Physics philosophy as you can see the link to the weighty writeup on the Copenhagen Interpretation is part of Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

But all interpretations are part of philosophy and are currently not falsifiable. Not just the ones someone may not like.

And just because it's not science doesn't necessarily mean it can't be right. No harm in exploring ideas.

Right, Roger Penrose and Eugene Wigner and a host of other physicists who subscribe/d to consciousness collapse interpretations aren't people who care about evidence...

It's wild how many people are so quick to be confidently incorrect about something that sounds correct and science-ish but doesn't at all reflect the actual subspecialty nuances.

Literally none of the QM interpretations have evidence supporting their particular interpretation.

At best there's a handful that have been abandoned due to falsification, like interpretations predicated on local hidden variables.

There's no more evidence for Copenhagen or many worlds than there is for consciousness collapse.

There's simply different inherent assumptions that different physicists are willing to entertain, but it's entirely a personal choice and ultimately not evidence driven.

And the picture of assumptions changes over time. For example, post-2018 all popular interpretations other than many worlds have a new "pick at least one of three" assumptions that must be embraced following a new paradox. But currently that's pretty much the only guiding factor, is what assumptions one is willing to entertain.