[michellemfry]

Could I suggest that if the specific observer were to fail to observe, there would be obvious consequence? If the specific observer simply observed, there may be no fanfare or tah-dah. Simply fulfilling the purpose for which one was designed is simply functioning normally. The failure to observe by the specific observer would represent a breakdown in the process, a catastrophe. While the accomplishment of such an unlikely event as one observer and one observation is met with no discernable affect whatsoever. Yet, it is a rare and endangered event in the making. One observer and one observation. Now that is a pair that is as significant as A-T and G-C.

Good question for the assume it to be true. These are fun to do. Pure speculation based upon fundamentals can be good scientific exercise. It is in a way the making of fact and fiction to be indistinguishable which was predicted to be chaos and unproductive to the scientist. Here it is held for the exercise that it is. Accept something you know is fiction as fact and respond accordingly.
We are not relying on the universe to actually exist this way, so we are not relying on the outcome for truth or fact. It remains the facts based upon an absurdity. Yet, somehow, the use of fundamentals is the only logic that remains when all is said and done. The ends justified the means, which in this case involved an absurdity.
How is this possible? Did the use of fundamentals negate the absurdity? Is that the way the universe actually handles absurdities that arise in nature?
They do arise, do they not? The correction of an anomaly with known physical laws is an interesting topic to consider as well.
Actually, the assumptions were not absurd, so much as pure experimentation, in the form of what if the following. The following may or may not be true.
Enter x into the experiment and see what follows. We suppose x as it is presented to us.