I don’t like CI. But I was always thinking that CI is an idealistic interpretation, based on the consciousness and the existence of intelligent observers. In Bohr’s time it was simple. He believed in a sharp line between quantum world and macroscopic world. Quantum event Q was registered by the Measurement device M et voila: wavefunction collapse. Q -> M But we know how tiny the measurement devices can be. On the other hand, we can put millions of particles into entangles state. So, what happens when we store a result of a quantum event in some tiny qbit measurement device? Why it does not collapse? Q -> M1 CI proponents say: well, storing Q in M1 is NOT a measurement. Only then, when we observe status of M1 we perform a measurement: Q -> M1 -> M2 Now we have 2 devices: small M1 and a bigger one: M2. But wait, we can make this chain of measurement devices much longer, making a ‘consequent measurement’ Q -> M1 -> M2 -> M3 -> … => Mn So what measurement is ‘real’? There are only 2 options: 1. CI is not about the measurement. It is about the observation. CI is idealistic and it requires a consciousness C to collapse a wavefunction: Q -> M1 -> M2 -> M3 -> … => Mn -> C 2. CI must give an exact definition of what Mi *IS* a measurement device. Knowing that measurement devices can be tiny and consist of few atoms, CI must give a detailed explanation of what combinations of atoms are measurement devices and what combinations are not measurement devices (and clearly it can’t do it) So why CI talks about measurement while “wavefunction is not real, it is just an information” which clearly suggests the consciousness as an only collapse agent. So instead of thinking about the superstrings about the most fundamental things, we should think about the consciousness as something irreducible to simpler things. It makes some sense, but it is definitely not the way how CI proponents see that interpretation.