He is, at the moment of observation (while approaching the traffic light, say) separate from, not composed of, and not existing in, the color that light will be when he first perceives it. Irrelevant. Under no circumstances does a brick have more freedom of action - degrees of freedom in its response to stimuli - than a Fred. Is there an entity called "Fred", for us to talk about, or not? Sure. Now let's direct our attention to the nature of that "effect" - its properties, its abilities, etc Note that whirlpools can move around, shrink and grow, remain in place, gather debris, all while the water they borrow and the river they are in continue to behave as such entities in the universe will. Perhaps that suggests an approach toward discussing the much more complex and "independent" Fred. Reread. Nothing in my posting even suggests that the universe is not an entity. The opposite, in a sense - I object to identifying the universe as the only entity. And yes, I do want to grant Fred single entity status. Also bricks, etc. Things with names. And if you get rid of time and non-homogeneity, you get rid of causality. That is one of the problems with denying observable abilities to Fred now because of what will happen to him in the future, or denying qualitative differences between entities because they are all immersed in a "universal" soup.