>>3402
>What makes photons reflected by the eyes different from photons coming from natural light
There isn't any difference. Looks like this tuber made a poor choice of using a pair of eyeballs to represent "observation". If you look at the paper she references, they have to shine a beam of light at the atoms in order to observe them. How much the atoms get observed depends on how strong the beam is.

>And how is quantum computing theoretically supposed to work anyways? Do you need to be capable of forcing a certain state in quantum particles to make it work, or is it somehow fine for a particles state to be up to probability?
You need the particles to be in a particular state, but it's very difficult to keep outside influences from randomly changing the state, which is why you need this stuff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction

BTW if you're interested in this stuff I would strongly encourage you to go learn the math. Nobody knows how to explain this stuff in layman's terms without a bit of bullshit assumptions and/or equivocation.

god is observing all of the atoms, always

i don't think there exists any hard science or perhaps any science at all with terminology as utterly retarded as quantum physics
in other fields there's historical baggage, there's ambiguity between frameworks, there's outright obtuseness from fancy schmancy writers, but i don't know of any who've made people think they have psychic powers purely because anthropocentric words like "observer" and "measurement" were used to label mindbending phenomena that nobody can naturally interact with
particle physics also has confusing terms like spin and color but i haven't seen any new age gurus cling to those