I did already - the double slit experiment proves that we(the observers/measurers) have a distinct role in defining the "world" around us.
I submit that your wording was inaccurate. 'We' implies 'us humans'. The double slit experiment is not a paper (that is: the standards you expect off your opponents is greater than the standards you hold yourself to: I even gave you two papers on request), and it does not show as a fact that us humans have any particularly interesting role to play at all. You cannot sensibly discuss this topic whilst ignoring decoherence, which you ironically must do if your thesis is to stand at all.
I'm not so ignorant of quantum physics that I am unaware of the measurement problem, but you place significant weight in your own understanding of quantum physics. You sound like me when I was 14 and I had just read about this stuff for the first time. It might be an idea to keep an open mind about it at the moment, ask questions from the experts and avoid throwing your weight behind things so much.
"Upon measuring the location of the particle, the wave-function will randomly "collapse" to a sharply peaked function at some location, with the likelihood of any particular location equal to the squared amplitude of the wave-function there. The measurement will return a well-defined position, a property traditionally associated with particles."
"Moreover, since there exists no microscopic reality independent of observation(it says we have a distinctive role in defining the world around us), the realistic motion picture of the particle passing through the two slits does not exist in essence."
http://www.quantummotion.org/dse.html
Did you read the next paragraph? Where it says 'there exist two unnoticed deadly flaws in the demonstration.'?
There are basically two types of reactions when confronted with quantum mechanics:
1. Holy Crap, then that means there is no objective reality, consciousness is key, time travel is possible, we are gods in our own minds, blink and its all gone!
2. Wow, that's crazy. What does that mean? What do you mean we don't know? Are you telling me that this is just the way it is? Hmm, oh well - why did I expect to understand what the underlying nature of the cosmos actually means?
Some people start at 1, and move to 2. I don't think there are many people doing 2=>1 though.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.