A snapshot of a discussion between Roy Simpson and myself (in progress) ...
OK. So I now read your stuff with some care, reminding myself as I went about spaces Hausdorff, compact and oriented which I studied in my topology course years ago. I recognise some of the discussion, particularly the interchange between time and space directions within the event horizon but I'm sadly not competent to add value to your interesting remarks.
I wasn't really aware of Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM, although I had vaguely heard of it. He's spot on with this:
"Many (including me) have declared, with almost the certainty of a mathematical theorem, that it is impossible to distinguish between quantum interpretations with experimental tests. Reason: all interpretations describe the same mathematical formalism, and it is the formalism that makes the experimentally testable predictions. As it turns out, while this "theorem" is not wrong, it does contain a significant loophole. If an interpretation is not completely consistent with the mathematical formalism, it can be tested and indeed falsified. As we will see, that appears to be the situation with the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations, among many others, while my own Transactional Interpretation easily survives the experimental test."
from here: http://www.analogsf.com/0412/altview.shtml
Unfortunately one has to work through the maths to really be sure that the TI now has the edge over Copenhagen and the MWI. I think it's a bottomless pit for me!
However, one would like methodologically to have an observer-free account of the universe so your example at the end of your note points out the uncomfortableness of the Copenhagen interpretation. Like Einstein's "Are you really saying the moon's not there when no-one's looking?"
I'd almost wish the MWI to be the right one because it's so interesting!
Reverting to space-time geometry, did you see this? With Hawking's imaginary time all the intervals become Euclidean -- now if we only knew what imaginary time actually was!
Next book on my list: "The Shape of Inner Space".