Yes, the result of the experiment remain in probability when it's not observed, the results are in the future.
Let's say, scientists keep the slit data and the results and destroy half of the slit data before examining the results. But there is one modification. Before destroying the slit data, the data is shown to a cat (or a dog .. or a fly or a 1 year old child). I guess, the cat is not able to interpret the data, so there is no information - it's just data on a medium (paper). It is even not clear, what kind of data there is at that point - if the BC does not consider the cat to be conscious enough, there might be just a blank list of paper because the BC still waits to see if the screen data becomes information when the chance is high for the slit data to become information (or when the slit data has already become information).
So the question: does the Big Computer consider a cat to be enough qualified for "wave function to collapse"? If it is not true, then there is another problem: the cat has become the media, the data storage for the measurement data. If the cat itself does not understand the data, there is a risk that in the future scientists will find a way to get the data out of the cat's memory. Maybe they'll put the cat in anabiosis and wake up after a hundred years, and then they'll have a device to extract the data. Does this mean that the BC will calculate the probability for all the ways how the measurement data can become meaningful information, and if it can create some problems, then the BC will render the "politically correct" data of the experiment results for the cat to avoid causality conflicts in the future?
Midix, this is a misunderstanding many people make. People put to much emphasis on something "conscious", that there should be a difference between a human or cat.. It has to do with information
, and whether it's available or not when the observation is made. Observation just means it becomes fixed in this reality, it has nothing do with with understanding anything at the intellectual level, as in "knowledge". It's about whether the envelopes are opened or burned, and not about it being a physicist with some understanding versus a clueless cat or toddler that makes the decision, or who views the results if the decision is made randomly in a computer.
I advise you and anyone else that want to read more about this, to use the search function, there have been probably 15 different discussions on this in the past, and it's all there :)
Here's one example: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5699