Although I agree with Heisenberg on this, and while I think most physicists probably also hold this view, it is worth noting that other well qualified physicists disagree. The opposing view posits that the "collapse of the wavefunction" is actually postponed until a conscious observer (e.g. a human being) makes an observation that requires such collapse. This has nothing to do with our discussion of "patterns", of course. Out of context, it's hard to know exactly what Bohr was discussing here. It seems to me that he is probably just making the point that once a quantum "observation" is made, different human observers will inevitably agree on the outcome of that observation. In that sense, it is "irreversible" - the fact of the observation rules out a range of possibilities going forward in time from that point. An outcome of an observation is an objective, not merely subjective, fact. This is fine, as far as it goes, but the "required tasks" are unspecified. Again, this is out of context, so perhaps a more complete quote might have addressed that issue. At no point have you asked me my opinion on the matter you're claiming I'm "mistaken in believing". Next time, you should try doing that before making assumptions about what I believe. We were at no time discussing quantum mechanics, prior to your injection of this irrelevancy into our discussion. For mine, it is your repeated failure to address a point that has been put to you over and over again in different ways. It's like you have a blind spot. Either you're incapable of understanding what has been put to you, or else you're desperate not to see it, for whatever reason. Possibly you can't bear the thought that Max Tegmark might be wrong, or something like that. It's a mystery to me why you hold such a high opinion of your intellectual capacity, compared to the people you're talking to, at least some of whom have actual tertiary qualifications in science and/or the philosophy of science. At this point, my working hypothesis is a severe case of Dunning Kruger. Otherwise, surely you couldn't remain so blissfully unaware of the actual or likely capacities of the people who are trying to educate you. Not after years in which you have had the opportunity to examine their output on this forum. You're all over the shop, flopping like a fish out of water from one topic to another, almost at random. Each time you're corrected on something, you either ignore it or fail to understand the correction. Then you repeat the same fallacy at some later time. When the only references you consult are general-use dictionaries and introductory wikipedia articles, imagining them to give you a good understanding of highly technical topics, there's a problem. That you're apparently unaware of this suggests a lack of ability or desire for self-reflection, at the very least.