"In fact, you are awfully close to many worlds. The only difference between your view and "many worlds" is that certain universes have to disappear whenever there are conscient observers in other terms of the wavefunction, and that looks to me like a very strangely implementable thing: how can the arrangement of certain atoms in a certain term of the wavefunction, giving rise to a concient being (be it a microbe), suddenly make disappear other terms that describe entire universes billions of lightyears big ?
Isn't it more reasonable that these other terms just continue their happy existence ? No observable fact of their existence can in any case influence the conscient configuration, so why do they have to disappear?"
Yes it is very close to Many-worlds but the difference is i dont think the many-worlds actually manifest themselves as reality. The only one which manifests itself is the one lucky enough to produce an initial observer/biological system. This can be seen as a sort of survival of the fittest universe, like a darwinian wave function in phase space. For instance in Darwinism we know that non viable organisms die out.
Why dont the other universes survive? Because if the laws of qm are based on the vitality of observer/observed relationships (as i believe the experimental evidence proves ie. two-slits) then an observer-less universe is just not viable from natures point of view. In fact its an impossibility if nature demands observers before reality can occur.
I'm not saying there aren't other universes, but if those universes also consist of a quantum mecahnical fundamental law then they must also have observers.
"...So IF you can accept collapse, and hence IF you can accept a serious problem with the principles of relativity, then I think that Penrose's idea is very interesting. I'll tell you why: it avoids a fundamental difficulty with general relativity.
If you have a quantum-mechanical superposition of two gravitationally different systems, then those two states have two different spacetimes."
I like Penroses ideas alot, and love his books, though I'm not sure how much i agree with some of his ideas. But concerning the Relativity problem you mention; my personal belief is that Relativity is not so fundamental as we are to believe. QM is the fundamental and Relativity is more of an emergent property of QM. This is why i think they currently have run into a brick wall for unifying GR and QM. They are not equals but the science community treats them as equally fundamental and they think they should just naturally snap into place together in some TOE.
I'm not saying GR does not exist and it works great on macroscopic scales but it doesnt explain gravity, it just tells us how it behaves. So for me that PAP breaks Relativity - if that is the case - is not such a problem. I seriously do not think GR will survive in its present format without being reworked to take into account the more primal QM.