And then you said: "Here you are are trying to sneak in what you wish to prove. As your first step is invalid, the rest don't matter."
Dear Doc, you have yet to show exactly how my stipulation that algorithms are (as inevitable products of consciousness winnowed out by the process of logic, experience, and reason) products of consciousness that have no support in observable reality. Indeed, to my way of thinking, if anything, observable reality tends to support the way I do this analysis.
What would you put in the place of this analysis, however humble, that would allow you, a scientist, to hold onto any idea of legitimacy for quantum mechanics? If quantum mechanics istelf wants to purge itself of the observer -- that is, of consciousness -- then doesn't the theory "gut itself" thereby? And thereby prove itself ineffectual, false?
The fact remains, IMHO, that the Copenhagen School insists on the primacy of the observer. This is not something I made up for myself, to gratify my preconceived notions about reality.... Quite the contrary: I have heard that this is precicely the stuff of "the standard model" of cutting-edge theoretical physics, these days....
So what, exactly, is your beef here?
Furthermore, for all the talk about scientific method requiring predictability, they sure lose zeal for that idea when faced with a mass of gases that somehow came into being, exloded, and then brought about not only the universe as we know it but also scientists who can cogitate upon the same. Probability is a friend of true science, but it is certainly not a friend of evolutionists.
AS it appears that "Physicist" has retired for the night, I'll try to "fill his shoes" temporarily, as inadequate as I may be in that regard.
The entire point of "Physicist's" earlier reply to you was to point out that "observer" in the context of QM implies NOTHING about "consciousness." That's why he indicated that a lonely atom can act as the Quantum "observer."
The role of the "observer" in QM is fulfilled by anything that collapses the quantum state to a specific value. All that is required to do this is an interaction whose outcome is dependent upon the QM state of the particle whose QM state is in question. It doesn't matter if you call this an "observer" or a "detector" or a "zucchini." All that matters is that an interaction take place between the particle in question and something that is affected by the QM state of the particle in question. That forces the QM state to collapse to a specific QM value, and thus satisfies the requirement for a QM "observer."
Notice that at no time were the attributes of "consciousness" invoked in the process I just described.
Now, since I'm not a Quantum Mechanic, nor do I play one on TV, I must leave any more detailed inquiries for "Physicist" to respond to, perhaps in the morrow.