Take the description of the collapse in Nature Loves to Hide, by physicist Shimon Malin:
In this chapter we zero in on the mystery at the heart of Quantum Mechanics. 'The collapse of the quantum state'. The collapse is, whereby in an act of measurement, the potential becomes actual. An elementary quantum event is created out of a background of potentialities.
The process is atemporal occurring outside space and time and leads to an actual appearance of an event in spacetime. The idea of an atemporal process may seem strange but it is neither new nor obsolete. It is an integral part of Platos worldview and Whiteheads.
On this reading, conceptually speaking, the collapse of a quantum state ought to be called actualisation.
Consider a man. He can measure an apple, he can hold it in his hand. But he cannot hold the air. The air had to 'actualise' or 'condense' before he can hold it, before he can measure it.
Collapse is named from the purely mathematical conception of a quantum state, it collapses into an eigenstate whose eigenvalue can be measured.
Surely a mathematical description does not tell us what something is. I can measure, for example, the mass of an apple, but this does not tell me what an apple is.
The reason why, of course, collapse remains as a signifier in discoursing about QM is that there is no conceptual consensus on how to interpret QM; whereas there is a consensus on its mathematical description. Collapse, then, as a descriptive signifier, is the lowest common denominator in explanatory interpretations.
Is actualisation, given Malins description, a good stand-in?