My hunch is he probably wouldn't mind; he did propose "propensity fields" (which I call "happening places" ).

S's cat, tunnelling, apparent collapse, the uncertainty principle, are interrelated and don't apply in our portion of the scale spectrum. Measurement as we know it is developed at our scale (in the dimensions we are used to living in) and doesn't apply at the quantum scale unless concepts to "translate" are included. A lot of work will have to be done on what is appropriate to be done with the mathematics to progress accurately in this.

This has explained some aspects of it better than I had come across before.

Philosophically I like the punch line:

"Firstly, you can choose what questions you ask, but the answers are given by the world. And even in a relational world, when two observers communicate, their realities are entangled. In this way a shared reality can emerge.

Which means that if we both witness the same tree falling and you say you can't hear it, you might just need a hearing aid."

Which sounds like an oblique shot at the dumbing-down sensationalism that almost always surrounds these matters and has crept into this headline.

The whole of life is like the 1,000 piece jigsaw with only two pieces (so far) and no picture and no box.