'The universe needs intelligence to exist' Physics help plz

[Digitised]

This oddly enough is an argument made by a person who claims not to be a creationist.

He is actually a dentist who refers to himself as 'Dr...' and uses his basic degree qualification to disagree with sciences and specialisations outside of his realm.
He does believe evolution to be impossible and has made many videos trying to push ID, he is now trying his hand with quantum physics and is manipulating the ideas of the measurement problem and uncertainty, as a justification that the universe needs a 'conscious observer' i.e an intelligence observing it, in order to exist.

Hes not very clear from his latest videos, because he titled them 'age of the universe paradox' despite not making any claims about the age of anything.
What he does drive forward is an idea based loosely on simplifications of quantum mechanics, whereby the universe can only exist if something is looking at it, because the measurement problem 'proves' that the quantum world is uncertain about its own existence until measured.

Therefore the universe cannot exist until looked at by intelligence observers.


I am not a physicist, but i have laid down why i feel he is wrong and tried to explain that ALL interactions between the relative and quantum worlds cause wave functions to collapse and definate, reliable positions to be found. Hence the universe exists without intelligence or with it, as long as these interactions occur.
Our presence has nothing to do with reality being able to exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0S1t6CXwos&feature=email

Any experts about who can shed more light on this matter?

 

[e2iPi]

Your thought process is dead on. (didn't watch the video, I'm on a lousy connection right now)

There is a little more (non mathematical) detail in this thread. If you're looking for the mathematics behind it, just let me know. You usually don't need it with these wackjobs, though. If they actually understood what they were talking about, they wouldn't be saying stupid things to begin with

i^2

 

[PBnFlash]

That clip (at least in america) came from a movie called "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" James Randi had this to say about that video "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults." so yea.


As all observers are human and such are conscious, so all measurements are subject to an error in our brain, this is the same argument one could use to prove that we all could be living in the matrix.

But in fact, a computer can and do make the measurements when doing quantum experiments so the actual measurements by NO means require a conscious to be made.

The whole thing is based upon a poor understanding (or malicious misrepresentation) of quantum physics.

 

[ninja_lord666]

It's true that if you're talking about a quantum particle, then you have to deal with the Uncertainty Principle, but the entire universe is not a quantum particle. Quantum particles are sub-atomic, microscopic, small. The universe is not as such. Therefore, the universe as a whole does not fall under the jurisdiction of quantum mechanics. That's exactly what Schrà¶dinger's Cat was trying to prove. It is known that sub-atomic particles, like electrons, are ruled by quantum laws, but when those same laws are applied to objects in the macroscopic world, like a cat, it all falls apart. The cat cannot be alive and dead; the universe does not cease to exist when I close my eyes.

 

[Cluebot]

Feynman's explanation of the two slit experiment is a good antidote to this. See the Messenger Series, Lecture 6: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html#data=4|0||||

Essentially, to measure the presence of a particle you have to make it interact with something else. This is what's meant by "observation" of the particle. It doesn't actually matter whether a mind is involved in the process.

In the two slit experiment (as described by Feynman above,) if the electron interacts with the field of photons and is thus "observed" to have gone through only one slit, by the principle of consistent histories it cannot have gone through the other slit. Electrons that interact in this way are distributed as if there was no interference, while those that don't are distributed as if interference occurred (even if they go through one at a time.) It doesn't matter if nobody watches the photons.