Hi Tim Mitchell! How's it going?
This "quantum mechanics" stuff is endlessly fascinating, isn't it? You pose an interesting question. If I may tentatively offer something... And I say this with all respect to you; I do not know you, of course, but I want you to know that what I am about to say, I say with all respect to you!
I can't help but think that there is something (I'm not sure what) missing from your question.
1. If we are to take your question as it stands, surely --- "Don't call me Shirley!" --- we are merely talking about semantics; or rather, the need for a word to describe, say, the between-ness of "here" and "there"; or the "gulf" between "here" and "there."
2. Without the concept of "between-ness" of "here" and "there," the idea of "measurement" would not occur, certainly.
3. But then you say, according to quantum mechanics, that only when the "between-ness" of "here" and "there" is measured, that the "distance" this reveals becomes real.
4. Do you mean to say that "here-ness" and "there-ness" do not exist until measured?
5. Does the act of measurement create the "here-ness" and "there-ness," for which "distance" is the measure of their "between-ness"?
6. This train of thought suggests that "here-nesses" and "there-nesses" are endlessly create-able through measurement.
Do you remember the Jet Li film, "The One"? Something like this encompasses the plot. It seems that parallel universes are created when a star, or something explodes... or something.
7. Are we really talking about parallel universes?
8. Otherwise, surely something can be "real" without our being able to describe it.
9. And the idea of "measurement." Surely, this idea was "real" even before the human species came to "know" how to do it. Do you know what I mean? The vocabulary had to be developed to describe "new" sensations and feelings.
10. But then again, my rambling depends a lot on whether or not your question is complete.
Again, I mean no disrespect, Mr. Mitchell. I'm just asking questions myself.