That is completely wrong...This is not philosophy, this is mathematics.

That is not an argument. Why is it completely wrong? And why is Richard Feynman incorrect for espousing it? And why is it so obvious from perception?

Sure, I will grant you that if you cut my explanation from a quote then it does sound like I did not make an argument.

The point is that although it is true that we need to interact with the system in order to measure it, it is not obvious that this should specifically cause the wave function to collapse. Thus, the explanation you gave is not sufficient to understand why the wave function collapses. By contrast, the No-Cloning theorem *does* provide a sufficient explanation.

Feynman was most likely giving an approximation of what was going on for the ears of non-physicists and so one should be wary about reading into it too literally.

Finally, I have never claimed that the No-Cloning theorem was the obvious explanation for wave function collapse; in truth, there is little that is immediately obvious about quantum mechanics.

The reason why measurement affects reality is because of the No-Cloning Theorem which dictates that quantum information cannot be copied, so the most that you can do is entangle yourself with the particle which creates the perception of a collapsing wave function.

This is as backwards as saying that "the amount of impedence of the individual components of an AC circuit is caused by the imaginary exponential." No, the imaginary exponential was devised to easily calculate the impedence. To pretend that the math makes reality is to put the cart before the horse. Quantum mechanics and the no-cloning theorem are concepts used for predicting reality. They are concepts of method. They do not create reality.

Sure, but the model you outlined with particles bouncing is **also** just a model of reality rather than being reality itself, so you can't claim that the problem with my explanation is that unlike you I invoke a model to explain what is happening.