Well, that's the point. The experiment shows that one of three assumptions has to be false. But one of these (AOE) being false is not surprising or concerning at all, when dealing with non-conscious observers (such as photons, indeed). With conscious observers it would be concerning to some (not to me, but to Wigner and presumably the authors), because of the supposition that there's something special about conscious observers (i.e., magical thinking, IMHO). So what has this paper really shown? Absoluteness of Observed Events is false when the observers are photons, which (my layman's assumption) should surprise exactly nobody. And then they propose to repeat the experiment with an AI in a quantum computer as the observer. Lol.

> Absoluteness of Observed Events is false when the observers are photons, which (my layman's assumption) should surprise exactly nobody

I'm with you but is this experimental result not new though? It seems like they're on our side and confirming what should be a non-surprising result, which is good work.

Definitely not new, the double-slit experiment in 1801 first hinted that this might be the case, and then Heisenberg calculated exactly how 'not absolute' observed events are based on the wavelength (aka momentum) of the photon you're using (in 1927).

So nothing has been gained by doing these experiments and publishing the results? I find that hard to believe.

> (Unless you think photons are conscious, which I'm assuming you don't.)

Well, panpsychism is a thing and is actually having a bit of a renaissance.