Are quantum measurement of a system only occurring with human interaction?
In fact are only humane functional interaction like measurement/observation with a quantum system forcing it into a single state?
No, at least that is not how Heisenberg intended the role of the human observer. Her role is rather to describe the experiments and results in the one language which can be communicated:
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory starts from a paradox. Any experiment in physics, whether it refers to the phenomena of daily life or to atomic events, is to be described in the terms of classical physics. The concepts of classical physics form the language by which we describe the arrangements of our experiments and state the results. We cannot and should not replace these concepts by any others. Still the application of
these concepts is limited by the relations of uncertainty. We must keep in mind this limited range of applicability of the classical concepts while using them, but we cannot and should not try to improve them.
However, the measurement itself also has a role, and that role is slightly different from the human observer. A quantum system which gets measured is not closed. But if the system is not closed, then you need boundary conditions. And open boundary conditions are notoriously difficult to implement exactly, not just in quantum mechanics. The collapse postulate can be interpreted as an approximation to this open boundary condition, and the Heisenberg cut is the place where the boundary condition gets applied.
So what is the difference between a measurement with SEM for example or observation with the double-slit experiment, and a plant or any other objects having a functional interaction with a quantum system yet not forcing it into a single state like it should.
As is often the case with approximate open boundary conditions, the farer you move them from the system, the less error they introduce. For the SEM, putting the Heisenberg cut between the sample and the SE/BSE detector would give you more accuracy than you could ever want. For the plant on the other hand, it is less obvious where to put the Heisenberg cut. So the difference is between these two scenarios is that the sample in a SEM is separated from the detector in an obvious way, but a reasonable separation (place for the Heisenberg cut) in the cell is less obvious. Maybe it would be more obvious for somebody with sufficient experience with cell biology and photosynthesis.
Let me try to address the question whether this interpretation of the collapse postulate as an approximation to open boundary conditions was just made up by myself. The long quote above was the introduction of chapter 3 The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory pp. 46-57 in Physics and Philosophy (1958) by Werner Heisenberg. The following passage is from the end of that chapter (before Heisenberg connects his his clear words with Bohrs "philosophical reflections"):
We have to add some comments on the actual procedure in the quantum-theoretical interpretation of atomic events. It has been said that we always start with a division of the world into an object, which we are going to study, and the rest of the world, and that this division is to some extent arbitrary. It should indeed not make any difference in the final result if we, e.g., add some part of the measuring device or the whole device to the object and apply the laws of quantum theory to this more complicated object. It can be shown that such an alteration of the theoretical treatment would not alter the predictions concerning a given experiment. This follows mathematically from the fact that the laws of quantum theory are for the phenomena in which Planck's constant can be considered as a very small quantity approximately identical with the classical laws. But it would be a mistake to believe that this application of the quantum-theoretical laws to the measuring device could help to avoid the fundamental paradox of quantum theory.
The measuring device deserves this name only if it is in close contact with the rest of the world, if there is an interaction between the device and the observer. Therefore, the uncertainty with respect to the microscopic behaviour of the world will enter into the quantum-theoretical system here just as well as in the first interpretation. If the measuring device would be isolated from the rest of the world, it would be neither a measuring device nor could it be described in the terms of classical physics at all.
Heisenberg clearly makes the point here that a quantum system is not a closed system, but an open system. And he makes it clear that moving the (open) boundary further away is OK, but that believing it can be removed completely would be a mistake.
However, the observation that open boundary conditions are notorious difficult to implement even outside of quantum mechanics is not from Heisenberg. (At least I didn't learn it from him directly or indirectly.) This observation came up in an exchange with Ajit R. Jadhav about local and global hidden degrees of freedom.
