EM Imagine I set up Schroedinger’s cat and a machine that will open the box after 10 seconds and ring a bell if the cat is alive. I set it up, and wait 10 seconds, and don’t hear a bell. What’s happened to the wavefunction?
CM What happened is that a person, you, have made an observation based on an expectation that you have of a particular experiment.
EM But I didn’t interact with the apparatus. No signal was transferred between me and it.
CW If you didn’t interact with the apparatus then how do you know the bell didn’t ring?
EW Because I’ve noticed 10 seconds passing and not registering a bell ringing in that time?
CW Why would you expect to hear a bell ringing unless you know that you can hear that bell and that bell is part of the apparatus?
EM I wouldn’t do, but are you trying to say that being aware of that counts as interacting with the apparatus?
CW Of course. Does RAM exist if it’s just filled with 0s?
EM Sure, but the idea of RAM in my head isn’t RAM in reality.
CW Being able to hear a bell isn’t in your head either. Being able to hear a bell and infer a meaning to the apparatus from that sensory experience (or your unfulfilled expectation thereof) is what your interaction consists of.
EM Yes, and neither unfufilled expectation or potential ability to hear a bell are real interactions with the real apparatus.
CW They are if you can really hear a bell (which is part of the apparatus) and if you can really understand that hearing the bell constitutes a result of your experiment.
If a dead person doesn’t hear the bell is it still a valid observation?
EM As far as the mathematics was concerned, it was “observed” (decohered) by the time the bell rang. But “being able to hear the bell” is not an interaction. *Actually* hearing the bell is, but that doesn’t happen.
CW Your view takes sense for granted to the point that it denies a difference between a living observer and no observer.
As far as the mathematics was concerned”
Which proves my point. Mathematics truncates consciousness.
EM Your point is… what? Believing in single observers and WF collapse is more rational then just interpreting the mathematics that explains your results in the first place?
CW The mathematics don’t explain the results, they only diagram a skeleton of one measurement of the results. The actual experiment and results take place outside of mathematics.
Are molecules conscious?
Multisense Realism 
I’ll give you a clue. You actually said it, though you didn’t take it literally.
“Nothing is an object in its own frame of reference.”
Yes, it is.
For example?