Is it accurate to say "a wavefunction is a function of particle positions or momenta"? Something has been bothering me for a while.  I encounter this kind of statement everywhere:

While a single particle is described by a wave function $\Psi({\vec r};t)$, a system of two particles, call them 1 and 2, is described by a wave function $
\Psi({\vec r}_1,{\vec r}_2;t)$ depending on both particle positions. Leon van Dommelon

and

A free quantum particle is described by the Schrödinger equation:
$\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \ \psi(\mathbf{r}, t) = i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi (\mathbf{r}, t)$
  where $\psi$ is the wavefunction of the particle at position r and time t. Wikipedia

Many other examples of this kind of phrasing are on Physics Stack Exchange as well.
The problem is that it seems to me that the wavefunction is not a function of particle positions at all, for positions are not defined until the system is collapsed with a measurement.  It would be weird if the wavefunction was a function of random eigenvalues.  Instead, it looks like the wavefunction is a function of coordinates in Euclidean position space $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$ that maps a list of $x_1, y_1, z_1, x_2, y_2, z_2\ldots$ to a complex number.
Am I wrong?  Is there a good reason to say that the wavefunction is a function of particle positions (or momenta)?
 A: Allow me to combine a couple of the comments into an answer. The wave function is a complex-valued function of position and time. Taking the modulus squared of the wave function gives you a new probability density function (PDF) of position and time. Just like you get the total mass by integrating the mass density over the volume, you get the total probability of finding a particle in a particular region of space and time by integrating over position and time.

Thus the position and time you refer to are not specific values associated with the actual particle, but variable parameters that are used to find the likelihood that the particle was, is, or will be in some part of space that concerns you. Only by physically probing for the particle will you know the actual whereabouts of the particle. The collapse of the wave function is an act of measurement whereas calculations on wave functions are merely predictions based on the laws of physics.
A: If I understand your wording correctly, when people say "a function of position and time" they are using the word "position" to mean what you would call a spatial coordinate. It's not meant to suggest that the particle actually is at that position (and not at other positions).
However, a "position" in this sense, a.k.a. spatial coordinate, can be considered a potential position of the particle. You can then think of a wavefunction as the amplitude associated with a universe in which the particle does exist at that position. (This is basically the foundation of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.) It's often useful for conceptual understanding to think of wavefunctions in this sense, and so this is a way in which it can be considered valid to talk about $\vec{r}$ as particle position.
