The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayedchoice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
Common sense says the object is either wavelike or particlelike, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. See:
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness
if and when……just for clarification.

Is a quasicrystal, just a diffraction pattern? If and when……we observe it? So we can say that everything is a diffraction pattern/wave? As an observer, we collapse the wave function?
We want to simplify it……all else is added to the simplicity to say…..you have this theory of everything to suggest……by comparison a virtual reality is a tool with which we collapse the wave function? See, it just become much more complicated? We are working on a wave function machine, not just a computer.
Oh for sure, you want to get “a hold” of yourself. Then there is this causal connection to the beliefs that you form? You become much more responsible about the way in which you choose to do things, yes?
It is widely accepted that consciousness or, more generally, mental activity is in some way correlated to the behavior of the material brain. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness. Several programmatic approaches answering this question affirmatively, proposed in recent decades, will be surveyed. It will be pointed out that they make different epistemological assumptions, refer to different neurophysiological levels of description, and use quantum theory in different ways. For each of the approaches discussed, problematic and promising features will be equally highlighted.Quantum Approaches to Consciousness –
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1] hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain’s function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. It is not a single theory, but a collection of hypotheses.
So, Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness and we are having problems with a classical interpretation of a quantum process in this thread? Help.
Quantum cognition is an emerging field which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena such as information processing by the human brain, decision making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception.[1][2] [3][4] The field clearly distinguishes itself from the quantum mind as it is not reliant on the hypothesis that there is something microphysical quantum mechanical about the brain. Quantum cognition is based on the quantumlike paradigm[5][6] or generalized quantum paradigm [7] or quantum structure paradigm [8] that information processing by complex systems such as the brain, taking into account contextual dependence of information and probabilistic reasoning, can be mathematically described in the framework of quantum information and quantum probability theory.
Quantum cognition uses the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to inspire and formalize models of cognition that aim to be an advance over models based on traditional classical probability theory. The field focuses on modeling phenomena in cognitive science that have resisted traditional techniques or where traditional models seem to have reached a barrier (e.g., human memory [9] ), and modeling preferences in decision theory that seem paradoxical from a traditional rational point of view (e.g., preference reversals [10]). Since the use of a quantumtheoretic framework is for modeling purposes, the identification of quantum structures in cognitive phenomena does not presuppose the existence of microscopic quantum processes in the human brain.[11]
Maybe look at quantum erasure experiment first and draw your conclusion. Then, take in the experimental process being cited in the article link above.
. Setup of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. Detector D_{0} is movable 
A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by YoonHo Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully,^{[1]} and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the wellknown double slit experiment in quantum mechanics as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement.
Shall I be so bold then to announce that “everything,” is a wave?
The QL model developed in this article has a temporal basis, based on a (hypothetical) argument that cognitive processes are based on at least two time scales: a (very fine) subcognitive one and a (much coarser) cognitive one.