(deindent) I agree that there is some justification necessary for the emphasis on many-worlds in this section. I believe this is justified, because the many-worlds article came somewhat before Wigner's article on consciousness, and some have suggested that it inspired Wigner's article. Wigner's point of view directly inspired some of the quantum mysticism, but Schrodinger's point of view also was somewhat similar, and everyone was aware of the pitfalls of describing an observer using quantum theory.  The many-worlds literature is the historical source for nearly all modern interpretations of QM. The interesting part is that Everett's point of view has also been influential in the philosophy of mind, through the work of Dennett and Hofstadter. That's because the mind-subtleties that arise in many-worlds can be made to arise in any mechanistic theory of consciousness. So I think the emphasis is appropriate.  But the main issue of what quantum mechanics says and so on is pretty much without dispute, and independent of intepretational details, so I didn't bother to qualify it. Maybe you could be more specific about what statements are underqualified.    