If the subject is not really changing as we percieve it then what is it when we are not observing it?
Well I am getting the impression that the behaviour of the subject is just the change the subject undergoes.
So perhaps there is a reciprocal allocation as we get to the micro perception. I am not sure why I consider all universe-phenomenon to be like this but, I always consider (but not hold true to) things to have an inverse in which their existence is advantageous to such inversed tactics. It all started when I realized that infinity is the same as nothingness even with the opposing duality to the mind. So what we perceive of the subject might have some sort of reciprocal allocation as perceived when no change is really happening because the same thing is happening anyways. The mind just sees things binarically, dually. The reciprocal reciprocity and such other stuff.
So it is just changing the conditions that we observe, not really true motion. Change is change in conditions, and perhaps conditions work in a gradient that is proportional to information. The more into macro perception we get (because it is our normative perception of information) the more information we have so the more smooth the gradient is where change can apply in conditions. The changing of conditions can appear smooth in our normative, and in the micro, the information is limited. So the gradient of information is rough, and the change in conditions is less fluid, appearing random to our perception. Spatially is the gradient, motion is the appeared flow of information. I dunno.
So... how do I reconcile this absurdity with the measured aspect. Let me think a little.
Ok so if I don't measure the subject then what will it do? And we cannot seem to know what it is doing until it is measured. Well it must obviously be quite random to our perception. I just need one more piece of information.
What is the difference between a wave and a particle in terms of perceiving it? And what are the differences in the properties of such.