I have to go with Bohr on this one.
Here’s why: The observer can’t be extracted from the equation, not just in a mathematical way but also in an interpretive way.
It’s not that the others are necessarily wrong in my mind… but here’s how I see it:
When people are deeply involved in a field, their view of reality is colored by the lens of their field.
So, Dawkins sees everything as evolutionary biology. Of course he would: he’s an evolutionary biologist (Darwinist though… he still does the tree of life thing)…
So, every analogy he sees will be from that perspective.
Everett, whose position seems to be more and more commonplace, at least among science entertainers/educators if not so much among working quantum physicists (at least those I know tend to see QM as a pragmatic mathematical device that leads to insights about the _potential_ nature of things but not as actual), seems to mistake the tool for the house as it were.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]