I appreciate your answer to my comment. This idea that "consciousness has to interact with it at some point to read the measurement" is not something to be outright dismissed from a philosophical point of view. Even a few renowned physicist have had a similar reasoning at some point. However, there is still no plausible reason for me to assume that it is the act of me reading a number on a screen that retroactively causes the wavefunction of the particle to have collapsed in the first place. This seems a rather farfetched assumption in comparison with the much more simple view that physical interactions between quantum states entail within themselves the mechanisms of wavefunction collapse. The conscious mind does not have any appreciable physical interaction with the particle in the experiment, while the the measuring apparatus has. You should consider two scenarios: 1) the measuring apparatus is turned on, and the observer registers a certain behavior, in which typically the quantum features are lost due to collapse; 2) the apparatus is turned off, and the observer, who is there just like before, registers a different behavior which evidences the quantum properties of the particle. Question: where is the difference between the two scenarios, in the observer or in the measuring apparatus? What seems to be the plausible cause for the change of behavior?

Retrocausality has been subject to some research, but until now there, not a single evidence pointing to its occurrence has been produced. You say you've had experiences revealing retrocausality; would you mind sharing them? Because I'm completely unaware of anything of the sort.

Also, you are misrepresenting the current understanding of quantum entanglement. I've explained in my previous comment that quantum systems are characterized by a wavefunction. Actually, this is one possible representation of the system which is especially suitable for position space descriptions. A more general (and abstract) representation is given in terms of a set of states which correspond to the possible measurement results, called eigenstates. A general state of a quantum system consists of a superposition of eigenstates, in such a way that, when you measure it, you have a given probability of getting each possible result. These probabilities are expressed in the weights with which each eigenstate enters the superposition.

Now, for a single quantum particle, this superposition merely reflects the inherent uncertainty in the observable variables of the particle (position, momentum, etc..). However, a system may consist of 2 particles (or any number, actually). If you write a superposition of eingenstates referring to 2 particles, you still describe the intrinsic uncertainty of the observables, but the contents of this state may actually be much more complex than that. You are using two sets of eigenstates and, because of that, you may or may not have correlations between them. When there is a certain kind of correlation, we speak of quantum entanglement. Picturing this state as consisting of 2 separate entities is a classical notion which fails to grasp the actual physical nature of the state. From a quantum theoretical point of view, it is a single state, and any interaction with the state affects the state as a whole.

This is why, when we perform measurements on a pair of entangled particles, interacting with one of the particles seems to induce a bizarre instantaneous response in the other. At the quantum level, however, you are interacting with an inseparable system, one quantum state only. And again, before you perform the measurement, the system doesn't generally have any well defined position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc.. Upon performing a measurement, the state collapses as a whole to the measured eigenstate, and you are bound to find a result consistent with entanglement correlations if you go and measure the other particle. So, nothing points to the idea that "the polar configuration will have always been there effectively even though you didn't define it until a certain point". We don't define the polarization, we measure it, which implies interacting with the system and consequently changing it from a superposition state into a single eigenstate.