Brent Allsop (allsop@swttools.fc.hp.com)
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:31:35 -0600

John K Clark <johnkc@well.com>,

Thanks for your obviously well informed answers. (and more
importantly for clearly understanding what I was so poorely trying to
ask. ;)

> Backward causality? Splitting universes? Observer defined reality? I
> don't know, I do know that something very weird is going on.

Yes, for sure. I just don't understand why people insist on
taking it clear to being dependent on being consciously observed or
represented. Why not just accept the much simpler: any macro physical
representation of the event (i.e. a firing neuron or switching
transistor, orientation of magnetic flux on tape...) be considered an
"observation"? What does a phenomenal conscious representation of the
event have (especially since it is so causally separated from the
actual event) that any other macro physical representation of the
event (many of which are causally much closer to the quantum event)
doesn't have? What on earth is the reason for bring consciousness
into it is what I always wonder. It does nothing but make things
infinitely more complex doesn't it? A clear violation of Occam's
razor? Wasn't this what the Schrodinger's (sp?) cat idea was meant to
point out?

Brent Allsop