>
>If we're not talking about a human, what kind of observer are we talking about?
>

I thought we were talking about entities for which an event is relevant.

>
>>Back to the observer: As you said, we don't have a class definition for the observer, but we know we'll need one at some point.
>
>
>Do we know that?
>
>It seems to me that this is the question of relating mind to matter. Does mind follow from matter? Do they sit on equal footing?
>
>The common view, I would guess, of anyone following along would tend to believe that mind, observation, is a result of matter doing its things; there is nothing supernatural about our minds.
>

It looks like we'd have to clarify the philosophical issues first. Then we can follow to the easy part of physics, math :)
You may want to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.