> > It only seems like an observer is necessary for "sound" because you're using the wrong definition of the word; you're trying to reason about physics using a definition meant for human psychology. It's no more valid than trying to reason about calculus using the wrong definition of the word "integral".
>
> Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum.

That is incorrect if you're trying to do physics.

I get that you like the idea of the presence of a mind being necessary for something to be "sound", but that is literally wrong in a physics context. It's not even a matter of opinion, that's just not how the word "sound" is defined for use in physics.

> The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon

From that link:
> "The observer in this experiment was not human. Instead, they used a tiny electron detector that could spot the presence of passing electrons. The quantum “observer’s” capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from “observing,” or detecting the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current."

i.e., the key is not "an observer" in the "conscious agent" sense, but rather detection or measurement in the "physically interacts with the system" sense. That article says exactly the same thing that I've been saying all along, which is that the difference is measurement, not a conscious observer.

Again, you're getting hung up on definitions of words that are not correct for a physics context. "Observer" does not imply that there is someone doing the observing; it just means measurement is occurring.