Well, one last post on this general subject.
In regard to Occam's Razor. As I recall it basically says that if 2 theories explain an observation equally well, choose the simpler. Now this doesn't rule out the more complicated one. If further observation (testing) shows the simpler doesn't work well, then you should go ahead and try the other one. But the requirement of a consciousness for the universe to exist is not a scientific theory, and there is no known way to test for it.
As far as the requirement for a consciousness. I believe this comes from a misunderstanding of a lot of discussions of the quantum theory (QT). An example is Schrodinger's Cat. QT says that until the box is opened the cat is in a superpostion of both possible states (alive and dead). But when the box is opened and we make an observation then the superposition collapses into just one of the states. It is the requirement that an observation be made that confuses people. They assume that an observation requires a consciousness to make it. But lets do a simple thought experiment.
Assume that there exists someplace a quantity of naturally occurring silver iodide.
Immediately above this is a layer of some naturally occurring polarizing crystal.
At some distance from the crystal, and on a line of sight from it, and from the silver iodide, there is a quantity of florescent material which will emit a photon when a beta particle (electron) hits it.
According to QT the polarization of the photon will be in a superposition of all possible polarizations, until it is detected.
If the photon hits the crystal the superposition will collapse into just one polarization.
QT positively defines the probability that the polarization will be the same as the polarization of the crystal.
If the polarization of the collapsed state of the photon is the same as the polarization of the crystal it will pass through the crystal.
If the photon passes through the crystal it will strike the silver iodide and cause one molecule to decay and leave one atom of silver and its other decay products in its place.
Notice that we now have a absolute change that was not observed by a consciousness, and quite probably never will be. But it will make a change in the universe. Therefore I feel that the need for a consciousness to keep the universe running is an unneeded idea.
And that's all I have to say on this subject.
Bill Gill
