Uhhh..... > Regarding the entanglement of brain with experiment, that is totally unfounded extrapolation of applicability of many-particle Schroedinger's equat

Uhhh..... > Regarding the entanglement of brain with experiment, that is totally unfounded extrapolation of applicability of many-particle Schroedinger's equation. It is useful for atoms and molecules, but it is practically intractable for systems of few atoms. It seems like you're saying that a different physics governs reality once the number of particles is large enough. Is your sole objection instead that rigorously describing the state of a brain is computationally intractable? If so, what bearing does that have on this: > We shouldn't assign mysterious properties to "measurement" as though it's some magical thing that just makes quantum mechanics happen. Just call it what it is: entangling the state of your brain with the results of an experiment. To answer your question, I don't need formally specify the experimenter in rigorous detail, in order to reason about what is going to happen when I ask the experimenter the result. It's also weird that you mention that I can "just ask the experimenter" when that doesn't really help me make any predictions. (Unless I try to predict what the experimenter will say, at which point we're back to entangled brains again.) What were you getting at with that?