Editing Copenhagen interpretation (section)

===Role of the observer===
Because they assert that the existence of an observed value depends upon the intercession of the observer, Copenhagen-type interpretations are sometimes called "subjective".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Howard |first=Don |title=Entangled quantum histories |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=456 |pages=706–707 |year=2008 |issue=7223 |doi=10.1038/456706a|bibcode=2008Natur.456..706H }}</ref> All of the original Copenhagen protagonists considered the process of observation as mechanical and independent of the individuality of the observer.<ref name="Heisenberg, W 1971 pp. 114">"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature." [[Werner Heisenberg|Heisenberg, W.]] (1959/1971). Criticism and counterproposals to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, Chapter 8, pp. 114–128, in ''Physics and Philosophy: the Revolution in Modern Science'', third impression 1971, George Allen & Unwin, London, at p. 121.</ref> [[Wolfgang Pauli]], for example, insisted that measurement results could be obtained and recorded by "objective registering apparatus".<ref name="PauliEinstein"/>{{Rp|117–123}} As Heisenberg wrote,

{{Blockquote|Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.<ref name="Heisenberg 1958"/>{{rp|137}}}}

In the 1970s and 1980s, the theory of [[Quantum decoherence|decoherence]] helped to explain the appearance of quasi-classical realities emerging from quantum theory,<ref>See, for example:
*{{cite journal|last=Zeh|first=H. Dieter|author-link=H. Dieter Zeh|year=1970|title=On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory|journal=[[Foundations of Physics]]|volume=1|issue=1|pages=69–76|bibcode=1970FoPh....1...69Z|doi=10.1007/BF00708656|s2cid=963732}}
*{{cite journal|last=Zurek|first=Wojciech H.|author-link=Wojciech H. Zurek|year=1981|title=Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into what Mixture does the Wave Packet Collapse?|journal=[[Physical Review D]]|volume=24|issue=6|pages=1516–1525|bibcode=1981PhRvD..24.1516Z|doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516}}
*{{cite journal|last=Zurek|first=Wojciech H.|author-link=Wojciech H. Zurek|year=1982|title=Environment-Induced Superselection Rules|journal=[[Physical Review D]]|volume=26|issue=8|pages=1862–1880|bibcode=1982PhRvD..26.1862Z|doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1862}}</ref> but was insufficient to provide a technical explanation for the apparent wave function collapse.<ref name="schlosshauer2019">{{cite journal|last=Schlosshauer|first=M.|year=2019|title=Quantum Decoherence|journal=[[Physics Reports]]|volume=831|pages=1–57|arxiv=1911.06282|bibcode=2019PhR...831....1S|doi=10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001|s2cid=208006050}}</ref>