To the point: Your paper is interesting. Or perhaps I should write, "IS interesting."
"However, saying that everything is one or the other does not make much difference in detail."
I'm looking over your paper. I'm better prepared to read this than the other one so many years ago.
You gave permission to criticize. First, I give the paper two thumbs up for being interesting and what I bring to the table is from the standpoint of integrity rather than a vast knowledge of the physics you invoke.
I think it is unnecessary to state whether the universe is material or mind, monistic or dualistic. It depends on definitions.
Relationships, secondary effects, and free will will stretch all definitions to outer limits...but will these be contained or will they rupture the limits of a strictly mechanical interpretation?
In short, the value of the ideas in your paper depends on their ethical use. Will they be used to subjugate and oppress, or empower, regulate and illuminate?
Some phenomena in personal experience are addressed by your paper. If a quantum computer exists for shared experience, it sheds light on the group mentality without endorsing the group's conclusions. They hardly realize the "garbage in, garbage out" axiom is not just a good idea -- it's the first law unless highly-integrated, ethical thinking occurs... in the cases of either the quantum mind or the physical mind.
So, foggy as I'm being, I will now conclude the first installment by saying," Congratulations and thanks for sharing an interesting article!"
And to borrow a phrase from
some of our other posters,