I love this theory! However, it seems to have roots in the observer requirement supposed to be necessary in the double slit experiment, which Bohm-de Broglie (PIlot Wave) theory renders unnecessary.

The Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics is famously not consilient with classical physics, and this caused Einstein no little pause, as ontology is preserved in every other scientific endeavor.

I remain skeptical because of this. I feel pretty certain that the hubris of smart guys lead them to promote their Copenhagen interpretation (also, they made a lot of money doing it), and that Pilot Wave theory better fits the principle of consilience, and also preserves ontology.

The Copenhagen school, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Von Neuman, etc., sorta just ridiculed anyone that presented alternative explanations, and, despite that no predictions depended on the failure of consilience and ontology that their interpretation demanded, they dominated the discussion. This didn't make them right.

However, it made them dominant, and the next generation of students in the field were taught their interpretation, and so it goes. The genesis of Emergence theory from the observer requirement of the double slit experiment therefore is a weakness, from my perspective. To extrapolate from there to a universal consciousness (let's cut to the chase and just call it God) is a return to ontological consilience, 'cuz we can easily understand it.

It's kinda comfy.

Despite my reticence, I very much like this Emergence theory, as it meshes perfectly with my own conjecture, which I call 'The Giant Space Robots of Love From the Future' (which is basically that AI is gonna get so smart it'll go back in time and create the universe. I know, not all that original, but it gets me a lot of free drinks).

Thanks for adding more information on Emergence theory to my arsenal! More free drinks!