My question is in regards to the stance that the 'wave function collapse' is not an actual physical occurrence. That is, you are not, by observation, changing the particles position from a wave to a particle, it is merely that the wave function is the probability of finding the particle at a particular point. In other words, the wave function is a figment of our mind, and merely represents our in-ability to know its position without measurement.
Here I am going to make an important assumption: This argument implies that the electron does not actually travel as a wave (1.0).
Assuming this argument is true. Consider electrons being fired one, by one, through the slits. How can an electron know that there are two slits open if it is not travelling as a wave (1.1)? A point particle cannot know if the slit above it, or below it, is open, unless it is at the two slits at the same instance (1.2). Therefore, at the point of the slits, it must be propagating as a wave (1.3). But, through observation of the slits (specifically behind the slits), we can force the electron to act as a particle (because it is observed to only go through one slit(1.4)) and create two simple bands on the plate (1.5). As such, the electron has gone from being a wave, before the slit, and at the slit, to a particle, through the act of observation(1.6).
I have included (1.i) to represent my argument in parts. Obviously I have made some error/(s) somewhere since many bright minds have this stance. I would appreciate it if my error could be pointed in terms of its position with (1.i)
A further note on (1.4) - is it even possible to observe which slit the electron has gone through, or does the uncertainty principal rule that out?