A dog is not something like a “point of view” or a “reference frame” in that it can be thought to exist independently of a living, breathing being. A personali

A dog is not something like a “point of view” or a “reference frame” in that it can be thought to exist independently of a living, breathing being. A personalistic interpretation requires a "person". Would a rock or a cell phone qualify as a person? I'm not even sure the authors of that reference would accept a dog, despite saying the concept is extremely flexible (they discuss agents "social" agents but not "dumb" agents). It's not clear to me that the mathematical description can exist independently of the agent that has some knowledge, for some definition of agent. Even if it can be make to work with no-one's "abstract knowledge" what would be the physical meaning of that? (Not that the physical meaning when agents are present is clear, to be fair.)