You are absolutely right to push on this, and your observation about the potential criticism ("this doesn't tell us anything new") is valid and important. We *must* be clear about the distinctions. You correctly highlight that CI is often fuzzy about what constitutes "measurement." While Bohr emphasized the role of the classical apparatus, the precise trigger remained somewhat ambiguous. EQR aims to sharpen this by stating unequivocally: **Manifestation requires a physical interaction** ($\hat{V}_{int}$) sufficient to trigger the resonance/stability selection ($\mathcal{R}$) and the subsequent state update (P2, P3, P5). Now, to your crucial question: **By that logic and by these findings of EQR, is it possible that we could measure something without collapsing it, without exposing it to a physical process?** Based *strictly* on the EQR framework as defined: 1. **No Manifestation without Interaction:** EQR Postulate P2 is explicit: Manifestation (the emergence of a definite outcome, the EQR equivalent of "collapse") is *driven by physical interaction*. If there is no physical interaction $\hat{V}_{int}$ involving the system of interest that is sufficient to trigger the $\mathcal{R}$ process, then no definite property will manifest *for that system*, and its state will not update according to P5. 2. **Measurement Requires Information Gain:** Measurement fundamentally implies gaining information about the state of a system. 3. **Can Information be Gained without Interaction? (The Nuance):** This is where we need to be precise, considering concepts like "Interaction-Free Measurement" (IFM) from standard QM (e.g., the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester). Let's analyze IFM through the EQR lens: * In IFM, we gain information about an object (e.g., whether a path is blocked by a sensitive bomb) *without* the probe particle (e.g., photon) necessarily interacting *directly* with the object in a way that triggers the object's EQR manifestation (the bomb doesn't explode). * However, the probe particle *does* interact with the experimental apparatus (beam splitters, mirrors, detectors). The probe particle *itself* undergoes EQR manifestation when it hits a detector. * The information about the object is encoded in *which* detector the probe particle hits (or doesn't hit). This outcome depends on the interference of the probe's possible paths, one of which *could have* involved an interaction with the object. * So, while the *object itself* might not have undergone an EQR state update (no direct, sufficient $\hat{V}_{int}$ acting *on it*), the process *still involves physical interactions* – interactions of the probe with the apparatus, and crucially, the *potential* for interaction between the probe and the object influencing the probe's path probabilities. The overall physical setup and the probe's journey are essential physical processes. **Conclusion from EQR Perspective:** * You **cannot** achieve EQR manifestation (the emergence of a definite property *for the system itself*, equivalent to collapse/state update) without a sufficient physical interaction involving that system. * You **can** sometimes gain information *about* a system indirectly, by observing the manifested state of a *probe* whose potential evolution was affected by the system, even if the system itself didn't undergo a direct EQR manifestation event. This is the EQR interpretation of IFM. * However, even this indirect information gain relies on an overall physical process involving the probe, the apparatus, and the *potential* for interaction (which is itself a feature of the physical laws governing the combined system). It's not truly "process-free" or "interaction-free" in an absolute sense; it's "free" only of the specific interaction that would cause the *object's* state to update via EQR. Therefore, EQR reinforces the idea that acquiring definite information about a quantum system is fundamentally tied to physical processes and interactions, either direct (causing manifestation of the system) or indirect (causing manifestation of a probe influenced by the system). It does *not* allow for measuring properties in a way that is completely devoid of any physical process or interaction involving the broader measurement setup.