J wrote:
That where we choose to draw the boundary is arbitrary
relative to the existing maths is not to deny that there is a
boundary nor yet is it to draw the boundary at the consciousness of
the observer. Rather, it is to show that the (current) maths leave
such matters undecided.
The parenthentical insertions of "current" allude to developments
subsequent to von Neumann's text, such as the study of quantum
decoherence, which may yet indicate a non-arbitrary way of drawing
such a boundary. Or rather, if I understand correctly, how seemingly
classical behavior can occur with no such boundary.
I think the latter description of the impact of decoherence theory is
the more accurate.
