Astronomy & Space Exploration

[Invictus]

Somewhat unrelated to the core of the current discussion and delves into a mostly metaphysical (and at times cooky) paradigm, but an interesting lecture nonetheless:




Philip Goff is probably the leading force in cosmo/pan-psychism and also made an appearance in Sean Carroll's podcast: Mindscape Episode 71.

 

[Buster15]

This is true. What is also true, is that the universe seems to have been 'designed' to support life. I am not talking with regard to religion, but for the anthropic principle. There are just so many universal constants, that if either of them would have been slightly off (and by that I mean by 1 billionth of 1 billionth of 1 billionth ... of 1 percent), life doesn't exist. Heck the unvierse might not exist at all if they are slightly different. Of course, a multiverse with 10^(500) universes on it, each with its own constants means that some of the universes will support life, and then obviously we would happen to be in a supporting life universe. But the evidence for the multiverse is as low as that for the existence of God.

I think this is one of the most challenging questions in the history of science. Why these almost random-looking constants are exactly as they should be in order to support life.

What makes you say that the evidence for multiverses is low.
We don't even understand the development of our universe, or even our observable universe or even quantum physics.

The mechanism behind how our universe evolved during the minute fractions of a second is still theoretical physics.

Nevertheless, you are perfectly correct that the way our universe evolved over the thousands of billions of years has given rise to galaxies and stars and planets and moons. And it seems an inevitably that life of an almost infinite array of forms will and has developed.

I also am of the opinion that what we term as intelligent life where ever it is will have a huge number of bottlenecks to get through.

Obviously, the biggest challenge is the distances between us and another life form.
And that is something we are going to have to either deal with or accept.

 

[nimic]

I just think that the unlikelihood of life isn't an argument for the Universe being in any way special, having purpose, anything like that. Yes, it's unlikely that the conditions in the Universe would be such that they would support life, but the only reason we're around to speculate over that is that we're living in that unlikely Universe. If the Universe was different, there would be no one around to speculate over it.

I also have to push back on the idea that everything seems designed for life to happen. All we know is that life exists on this one, tiny planet. No matter what else is out there, the vast, vast majority of the Universe is utterly hostile to life.

 

[Raoul]

It's a very speculative topic like you say, but I don't think life is just a byproduct of the production of energy from the sun/universe. When you look at the fundamentals of physics and science in general, it is all designed to support the existence of it. It sounds a bit wacky and almost religious, but it seems the purpose of the universe/light/gravity is to ultimately create and support the existence of life.

The problem with this view is that its both teleological and anthropocentric. In both cases - an organism on one planet (Earth) attempting to ponder their own existence, using tools they have developed by way of the current evolutionary threshhold of their own brains. In many ways the "The Universe is so infinitely large so life must sure exist" argument, is very similar to the "God of the Gaps" argument in religion - where religious people assume the existence of God because humans can't fully explain the nature of the Universe.

As always, its best to allow science to guide us to the answers.

 

[Revan]

What makes you say that the evidence for multiverses is low.
We don't even understand the development of our universe, or even our observable universe or even quantum physics.

The mechanism behind how our universe evolved during the minute fractions of a second is still theoretical physics.

Nevertheless, you are perfectly correct that the way our universe evolved over the thousands of billions of years has given rise to galaxies and stars and planets and moons. And it seems an inevitably that life of an almost infinite array of forms will and has developed.

I also am of the opinion that what we term as intelligent life where ever it is will have a huge number of bottlenecks to get through.

Obviously, the biggest challenge is the distances between us and another life form.
And that is something we are going to have to either deal with or accept.

Because there is literally (as of now) 0 evidence about it. It is the same as the evidence for God, nada.

I don't agree that life had to be evolved. It had to be evolved given enough life and given the current laws of physics (constants). But why for example the cosmological constant is as small as it is (120 decimals before the first non-zero term), why the gravity is 10^(-34) weaker than electromagnetism etc. There does not seem to be genuine reasons why these are as they are, and if you slightly alter them, life never exists.

 

[Buster15]

Because there is literally (as of now) 0 evidence about it. It is the same as the evidence for God, nada.

I don't agree that life had to be evolved. It had to be evolved given enough life and given the current laws of physics (constants). But why for example the cosmological constant is as small as it is (120 decimals before the first non-zero term), why the gravity is 10^(-34) weaker than electromagnetism etc. There does not seem to be genuine reasons why these are as they are, and if you slightly alter them, life never exists.

Ok. You are right that there is no evidence of multiverses. I have to agree with you on that.

But, the fact that the multitude of potential outcomes just happened to all come together in the way they did is either a happy coincidence, or, that the odds of that happening all came together in our universe.

And that is why I believe in the multiverse theory.
Given an almost infinite number of universes and an almost infinite number of possible outcomes, ours just happened to turn out in a way that allowed galaxies and stars and planets to exist.

 

[nimic]

Ok. You are right that there is no evidence of multiverses. I have to agree with you on that.

But, the fact that the multitude of potential outcomes just happened to all come together in the way they did is either a happy coincidence, or, that the odds of that happening all came together in our universe.

And that is why I believe in the multiverse theory.
Given an almost infinite number of universes and an almost infinite number of possible outcomes, ours just happened to turn out in a way that allowed galaxies and stars and planets to exist.

If we didn't happen to live in a Universe that allowed galaxies and stars and planets to exist, we wouldn't be around to speculate on it. The properties of our Universe are no more or less likely than any other possible Universe, so while it's super unlikely, one kind of super unlikely Universe had to exist. If you win the lottery, do you wonder why me?

 

[Revan]

Ok. You are right that there is no evidence of multiverses. I have to agree with you on that.

But, the fact that the multitude of potential outcomes just happened to all come together in the way they did is either a happy coincidence, or, that the odds of that happening all came together in our universe.

And that is why I believe in the multiverse theory.
Given an almost infinite number of universes and an almost infinite number of possible outcomes, ours just happened to turn out in a way that allowed galaxies and stars and planets to exist.

If we assume an infinite number of universes (or well, 10^500 given by string theory) then sure, by sheer chance some of them would support life, and of course, an observer would happen to be in one of them. Asking why we are here instead of some dead universe, would be similar to asking why that particular spermatozoid who made me managed to get the egg cell.

But, there is nothing to suggest that there is a multiverse in the first place. The entire theory is designed to answer the fundamental question of why the constants are as they are. This is why you might hear physicists who are atheists (like Ed Witten for example) say that 'it almost seems like the universe has been designed by a mathematician'.

So yeah, with the very little we know, there either needs to be a multiverse with a large number of universes, each having their own constants, or the universe has been designed by some superintelligence, which people call God. Of course, the evidence for either of them is totally lacking, so there might be something else. I don't think though that 'believing' in a multiverse is more scientific than believing in God. Seems a bit like pseudo-science.

 

[luke511]

The problem with this view is that its both teleological and anthropocentric. In both cases - an organism on one planet (Earth) attempting to ponder their own existence, using tools they have developed by way of the current evolutionary threshhold of their own brains. In many ways the "The Universe is so infinitely large so life must sure exist" argument, is very similar to the "God of the Gaps" argument in religion - where religious people assume the existence of God because humans can't fully explain the nature of the Universe.

As always, its best to allow science to guide us to the answers.

I realise now that bringing the word "purpose" into it opens up another can of worms, the point I'm trying to make is that the laws of physics and the universe seem to revolve around the creation and existence of life, those constants and rules aren't just inclusive to Earth, so it's a fair thought to think that there's a mutual connection. I also like to concentrate more on the sun rather than Earth when thinking about these likelihood of life out there, like I've said before they're the engines of life after all

 

[luke511]

Definitely. And to go a bit further, the 'axis of evil' thing seems to give some significance to the solar system.

It is all weird!

That's the first I've heard of the 'axis of evil' but after having a proper look into it, very interesting. It's also bizarre how I've never heard of it before, almost seems like physicists have completely ignored it like it wasn't discovered in the first place. You sourced out any reasonable theories why this happens?

 

[Raoul]

I realise now that bringing the word "purpose" into it opens up another can of worms, the point I'm trying to make is that the laws of physics and the universe seem to revolve around the creation and existence of life, those constants and rules aren't just inclusive to Earth, so it's a fair thought to think that there's a mutual connection. I also like to concentrate more on the sun rather than Earth when thinking about these likelihood of life out there, like I've said before they're the engines of life after all

This is again anthropocentric imo. As stated above, the Universe doesn't care either way, which is something humans seem to have difficulty embracing. Its quite likely that life is little more than an emergent property of a set of conditions that exist in rare places throughout galaxies and the Universe - much like consciousness is likely little more than an emergent property of increasingly complex neural networks. Neither are magical or special. They simply exist without meaning. Its us humans who invent these concepts to help us ascribe meaning to the answers we would like to be true.

 

[Revan]

I realise now that bringing the word "purpose" into it opens up another can of worms, the point I'm trying to make is that the laws of physics and the universe seem to revolve around the creation and existence of life, those constants and rules aren't just inclusive to Earth, so it's a fair thought to think that there's a mutual connection. I also like to concentrate more on the sun rather than Earth when thinking about these likelihood of life out there, like I've said before they're the engines of life after all

I wouldn't necessarily say, designed for life. More like, designed for the universe to not immediately crash and to have long enough time for the atoms to be created. A universe with a long life that supports atoms being created, has a high chance of resulting with planets and stars. Then having life becomes trivial given enough time.

The problem though is that by chance alone, the universe should have self-destructed immediately after birth. If cosmological constant was slightly lower, the universe becomes immediately a singularity and then we have a big bang - big crunch loop happening in a very short amount of time; if it was slightly higher, elementary particles never get created; if electromagnetism is slightly less powerful, the atom crashes in his own weight; same is gravity is slightly stronger, atoms don't get created, in fact, everything becomes eaten from black holes; if matter and anti-matter are in equal concentration (which should be, instead of the proposed 100,000,001 matter particles for every 100,000,000 anti-matter particles) all the matter becomes energy; if 'large' space dimensions are less than 3 the universe is too boring; if they are higher who knows what happen; same if there are more than one time dimension. The list is extremely long, and each of these constants being as they are (in isolation) are extremely unlikely, with their product being even more unlikely. By unlikely, I am not talking as unlikely winning the lottery, or unlikely winning the lottery every week for the next year, I am saying far more unlikely than that. As unlikely as you either need an insanely large number of universes (or even better, an infinite amount of them), or someone specifically designed (programmed) these laws in order to support the creation of stars, planets and ultimately life.

 

[Revan]

That's the first I've heard of the 'axis of evil' but after having a proper look into it, very interesting. It's also bizarre how I've never heard of it before, almost seems like physicists have completely ignored it like it wasn't discovered in the first place. You sourced out any reasonable theories why this happens?

As far as I know, there is no plausible theory about it. I think that physicists hate it cause it just makes no sense. It does not necessarily bring back Earth (to be more technical, the Solar System cause Earth is slightly misaligned) at the center of the universe, but it kind of hints that way. It just shouldn't be like this, and the physicists were hoping that it will go away with better measurement, but unfortunately, the evidence seems to have gone stronger after the Planck telescope.

 

[luke511]

This is again anthropocentric imo. As stated above, the Universe doesn't care either way, which is something humans seem to have difficulty embracing. Its quite likely that life is little more than an emergent property of a set of conditions that exist in rare places throughout galaxies and the Universe - much like consciousness is likely little more than an emergent property of increasingly complex neural networks. Neither are magical or special. They simply exist without meaning. Its us humans who invent these concepts to help us ascribe meaning to the answers we would like to be true.

True I guess it was! I give the existence of life in the universe more significance than that personally, but I suppose that's where I keep slipping up!

 

[luke511]

I wouldn't necessarily say, designed for life. More like, designed for the universe to not immediately crash and to have long enough time for the atoms to be created. A universe with a long life that supports atoms being created, has a high chance of resulting with planets and stars. Then having life becomes trivial given enough time.

The problem though is that by chance alone, the universe should have self-destructed immediately after birth. If cosmological constant was slightly lower, the universe becomes immediately a singularity and then we have a big bang - big crunch loop happening in a very short amount of time; if it was slightly higher, elementary particles never get created; if electromagnetism is slightly less powerful, the atom crashes in his own weight; same is gravity is slightly stronger, atoms don't get created, in fact, everything becomes eaten from black holes; if matter and anti-matter are in equal concentration (which should be, instead of the proposed 100,000,001 matter particles for every 100,000,000 anti-matter particles) all the matter becomes energy; if 'large' space dimensions are less than 3 the universe is too boring; if they are higher who knows what happen; same if there are more than one time dimension. The list is extremely long, and each of these constants being as they are (in isolation) are extremely unlikely, with their product being even more unlikely. By unlikely, I am not talking as unlikely winning the lottery, or unlikely winning the lottery every week for the next year, I am saying far more unlikely than that. As unlikely as you either need an insanely large number of universes (or even better, an infinite amount of them), or someone specifically designed (programmed) these laws in order to support the creation of stars, planets and ultimately life.

Nice read

 

[George Owen]

True I guess it was! I give the existence of life in the universe more significance than that personally, but I suppose that's where I keep slipping up!

Without anyone to observe the universe, would it really exist?

 

[Buster15]

If we assume an infinite number of universes (or well, 10^500 given by string theory) then sure, by sheer chance some of them would support life, and of course, an observer would happen to be in one of them. Asking why we are here instead of some dead universe, would be similar to asking why that particular spermatozoid who made me managed to get the egg cell.

But, there is nothing to suggest that there is a multiverse in the first place. The entire theory is designed to answer the fundamental question of why the constants are as they are. This is why you might hear physicists who are atheists (like Ed Witten for example) say that 'it almost seems like the universe has been designed by a mathematician'.

So yeah, with the very little we know, there either needs to be a multiverse with a large number of universes, each having their own constants, or the universe has been designed by some superintelligence, which people call God. Of course, the evidence for either of them is totally lacking, so there might be something else. I don't think though that 'believing' in a multiverse is more scientific than believing in God. Seems a bit like pseudo-science.

It depends on what you think triggered the birth of our universe, the event termed the big bang.

There are many theories as to what could have triggered it.
The one I tend to follow is that universes are being 'born' from an infinite number of bubble universes.

Some don't become viable and die giving back their energy.
While some years do become viable and then evolve, each in slightly different ways. And in our case, our universe went through a very brief cosmic inflation.

We all have to believe in something.

Either that, or we were just very lucky.

 

[Revan]

It depends on what you think triggered the birth of our universe, the event termed the big bang.

There are many theories as to what could have triggered it.
The one I tend to follow is that universes are being 'born' from an infinite number of bubble universes.

Some don't become viable and die giving back their energy.
While some years do become viable and then evolve, each in slightly different ways. And in our case, our universe went through a very brief cosmic inflation.

We all have to believe in something.

Either that, or we were just very lucky.

Sure, assuming that there are infinite universes, then by sheer chance alone we end where we are.

However, there is absolutely zero evidence for a multiverse, which is what I've been saying.

 

[PedroMendez]

True I guess it was! I give the existence of life in the universe more significance than that personally, but I suppose that's where I keep slipping up!

The universe doesn't care; nevertheless humans are the most significant thing in the universe. Not because humans were created or have an inherent purpose, but because of what humans can do. We can create temperatures colder than anything occurring "naturally" and hotter than the core of the sun in labs. In principle, we are able to compute/simulate/emulate every process in the universe that is allowed by the laws of physics to arbitrary accuracy. There are obviously practical barriers to do that, but we know that it has to be possible. If anything in the universe has cosmic relevance, its intelligent actors.
Terms like these have huge baggage because they are getting constantly abused. As a reaction, leading figures in (natural) science adopted the opposite trope, that humans are essentially just successful amoeba. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Buster15]

Sure, assuming that there are infinite universes, then by sheer chance alone we end where we are.

However, there is absolutely zero evidence for a multiverse, which is what I've been saying.

And. You will note that I have agreed with that.
But just because there is (quite obviously) no direct evidence doesn't mean it is not a possibility.

 

[luke511]

The universe doesn't care; nevertheless humans are the most significant thing in the universe. Not because humans were created or have an inherent purpose, but because of what humans can do. We can create temperatures colder than anything occurring "naturally" and hotter than the core of the sun in labs. In principle, we are able to compute/simulate/emulate every process in the universe that is allowed by the laws of physics to arbitrary accuracy. There are obviously practical barriers to do that, but we know that it has to be possible. If anything in the universe has cosmic relevance, its intelligent actors.
Terms like these have huge baggage because they are getting constantly abused. As a reaction, leading figures in (natural) science adopted the opposite trope, that humans are essentially just successful amoeba. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed. When you think about the universe, it's fair to say that stars are the most vital entities when it comes to existence. So when you ask the question: "What is the sun's greatest creation?" The answer has to be Earth and the complex life that occupies it. I don't mean for it to sound so intentional, but when you look at the sun, everything that it produces and provides, and the roadmap from the birth of the star to now, all of it leads up to the creation of life and supporting the existence of it. It's the difference between Earth being a cold empty piece of rock floating through space, and what it is today. So I think people should pay a lot more attention to the sun when talking about the chances of life beyond our solar system and think about why stars do the things they do.

 

[luke511]

Without anyone to observe the universe, would it really exist?

I'd love to know the answer! It's an interesting thought that I've had myself recently. A 14 billion year old universe without consciousness to benefit from its existence, apart from Earth though of course.. It doesn't quite add up.

 

[Revan]

Without anyone to observe the universe, would it really exist?

Did Earth exist before humans? Did it exist before the first replicators (life)? Do the galaxies far away that we cannot observe exist?

I think the answer is Yes for all of these questions.

 

[luke511]

Did Earth exist before humans? Did it exist before the first replicators (life)? Do the galaxies far away that we cannot observe exist?

I think the answer is Yes for all of these questions.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/does-the-universe-exist-if-were-not-looking
John Wheeler tested the question with very interesting results, seeing how photons from the past react to present observation.

 

[Revan]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/does-the-universe-exist-if-were-not-looking
John Wheeler tested the question with very interesting results, seeing how photons from the past react to present observation.

I know that based on quantum mechanics, the observer is not only a passive agent and directly affects the experiments by her observations. And of course, the light we see is essentially seeing in the past.

But to go from there to the universe exists only because of the observations is a bit of a stretch IMO.

 

[iammemphis]

I'd love to know the answer! It's an interesting thought that I've had myself recently. A 14 billion year old universe without consciousness to benefit from its existence, apart from Earth though of course.. It doesn't quite add up.

Do they not say in physics that time doesn't exist in space? Or something along those lines. Therefore the universe isn't any age at all? To us as humans it may see it is that old, but also if you and i were standing next to each other and you left earth and travelled far and away into space for a very long time and then back again, i would have aged faster than you despite us being apart the same amount of time. I'm sure i saw that explained somewhere by professor Brian Cox.

 

[luke511]

I know that based on quantum mechanics, the observer is not only a passive agent and directly affects the experiments by her observations. And of course, the light we see is essentially seeing in the past.

But to go from there to the universe exists only because of the observations is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Haha yeah definitely a stretch, a very interesting and thought provoking one nonetheless.

 

[luke511]

Do they not say in physics that time doesn't exist in space? Or something along those lines. Therefore the universe isn't any age at all? To us as humans it may see it is that old, but also if you and i were standing next to each other and you left earth and travelled far and away into space for a very long time and then back again, i would have aged faster than you despite us being apart the same amount of time. I'm sure i saw that explained somewhere by professor Brian Cox.

Sorry missed this, you're talking about time dilation there I think, and the study of spacetime.

 

[luke511]

I know that based on quantum mechanics, the observer is not only a passive agent and directly affects the experiments by her observations. And of course, the light we see is essentially seeing in the past.

But to go from there to the universe exists only because of the observations is a bit of a stretch IMO.

I've just realised, if the axis of evil can be used as evidence that we are in fact privileged observers of the universe, couldn't it be also used as potential evidence for Wheeler's theory that the universe exists and forms as it interacts with conscious matter?

 

[PedroMendez]

I've just realised, if the axis of evil can be used as evidence that we are in fact privileged observers of the universe, couldn't it be also used as potential evidence for Wheeler's theory that the universe exists and forms as it interacts with conscious matter?

there is nothing like a privileged observer. Systems (=humans are also systems) get entangled with their environment by bumping into each other. On the very small scale, decoherence is reversible, but on the bigger scale its not. That is what gives rise to the "classical" nature of our world despite its quantum mechanical underpinning. It has zero to do with consciousness. Consciousness in its own rights is special, less understood and more surprising than any quantum mechanics, but there is no known link.

 

[Buster15]

Sorry missed this, you're talking about time dilation there I think, and the study of spacetime.
[/QUOTE

Do they not say in physics that time doesn't exist in space? Or something along those lines. Therefore the universe isn't any age at all? To us as humans it may see it is that old, but also if you and i were standing next to each other and you left earth and travelled far and away into space for a very long time and then back again, i would have aged faster than you despite us being apart the same amount of time. I'm sure i saw that explained somewhere by professor Brian Cox.

Time exists everywhere. But as Einstein told us, it is relative and not fixed.

 

[Buster15]

I'd love to know the answer! It's an interesting thought that I've had myself recently. A 14 billion year old universe without consciousness to benefit from its existence, apart from Earth though of course.. It doesn't quite add up.

How does the universe know whether anyone is observing it or not.

 

[luke511]

How does the universe know whether anyone is observing it or not.

How does present observation determine the state of a photon from the distant past? I don't think there's a straight answer, as it means time doesn't have the same effect on entangled systems. The idea that both states exist until it is experienced, how do photons know when it's being experienced? Does it mean that the measurement of experience exists on a subatomic level, I've no idea personally.

 

[Buster15]

How does present observation determine the state of a photon from the distant past? I don't think there's a straight answer, as it means time doesn't have the same effect on entangled systems. The idea that both states exist until it is experienced, how do photons know when it's being experienced? Does it mean that the measurement of experience exists on a subatomic level, I've no idea personally.

Deep thoughts from a deep mind.
And the old saying - every day we know less about more is absolutely true.

Like you, I like to contemplate such things.
How did our universe begin.
Why is it here.
Why are we here.
What comes next.
And on and on until my old brain says Enough.
Just be like everyone else and accept it...

 

[nimic]

Do they not say in physics that time doesn't exist in space? Or something along those lines. Therefore the universe isn't any age at all? To us as humans it may see it is that old, but also if you and i were standing next to each other and you left earth and travelled far and away into space for a very long time and then back again, i would have aged faster than you despite us being apart the same amount of time. I'm sure i saw that explained somewhere by professor Brian Cox.

Time exists everywhere, but if you go very fast or are inside a particularly massive gravity well it will run slower for you compared to someone on Earth (for example). You would both experience time in the same way, mind.

 

[Revan]

@luke511 observation definitely affects the system, but I don’t think that observation has anything to do with consciousness.

 

[luke511]

@luke511 observation definitely affects the system, but I don’t think that observation has anything to do with consciousness.

It depends on the definition, and the depth of its existence. What if consciousness isn't just restrained to biological life and the simplest forms of experience inside the universe is all that is required for it to exist at a subatomic level. As the complexity of the universe grew, the complexity of consciousness grew right alongside it. Complex life is consciousness at its current highest form, the same way the Sun and Earth is the universe at its current highest form. Maybe the universe and consciousness coexist, in exactly the same way life and consciousness does. Very out there I know, but no one fully understands it yet, so there's room for outlandishness.

 

[PedroMendez]

It depends on the definition, and the depth of its existence. What if consciousness isn't just restrained to biological life and the simplest forms of experience inside the universe is all that is required for it to exist at a subatomic level. As the complexity of the universe grew, the complexity of consciousness grew right alongside it. Complex life is consciousness at its current highest form, the same way the Sun and Earth is the universe at its current highest form. Maybe the universe and consciousness coexist, in exactly the same way life and consciousness does. Very out there I know, but no one fully understands it yet, so there's room for outlandishness.

but we do understand how observations influence quantum states. Pretty much everything can be an "observer". Thats why its so hard to build quantum computers, because you have to cool down the system to extremely low temperatures to prevent decoherence.

 

[Revan]

but we do understand how observations influence quantum states. Pretty much everything can be an "observer". Thats why its so hard to build quantum computers, because you have to cool down the system to extremely low temperatures to prevent decoherence.

Exactly. The observer does not need to be a human or someone with consciousness or even 'life'. In Copenhagen's interpretation, nothing is said about the observer, in many-world interpretation it is anything that entangles with that particular quantum states.

Interestingly, I today listened to Sean Carroll's lecture on entanglement (that you pointed to me some days ago, thanks), and instantly thought about the current discussion going on this thread.

Massively recommended to anyone interested in this stuff:

In truth, the entire sequence of lectures seems worthy, though stuff starts becoming really interesting on spacetime (special relativity) and later.

 

[PedroMendez]

Exactly. The observer does not need to be a human or someone with consciousness or even 'life'. In Copenhagen's interpretation, nothing is said about the observer, in many-world interpretation it is anything that entangles with that particular quantum states.

Interestingly, I today listened to Sean Carroll's lecture on entanglement (that you pointed to me some days ago, thanks), and instantly thought about the current discussion going on this thread.

Massively recommended to anyone interested in this stuff:

In truth, the entire sequence of lectures seems worthy, though stuff starts becoming really interesting on spacetime (special relativity) and later.

many-worlders argue their case very well and give pretty straight-forward answers to most of the questions.

Regardless, the frame-work of quantum mechanics is ~100 years old. They added stuff and flushed it out, but its still rests on the same ideas. There are many things, that aren't figured out but there hasn't been a single observation in quantum mechanics, that wasn't predicted by the Schrödinger equation. In popular science QM ts often depicted as is this mystical idea, that nobody understands. All the (genuinely) amazing stuff, that is reported in slightly clickbaity articles, is always in agreement with the Schrödinger equation and the general frame-work. I would take any reasonable bet, that any observation/discovery in the next 40 years is also going to agree with this frame-work. It was well enough understood in the 60ies to predict what happens when we fire protons with incredible speed/energy at each other and it panned out exactly as expected, when the LHC detected the Higgs. Quantum mechanics nowadays is much more refined and advanced than it was back in the days. Just because its genuinely weird, doesn't mean that its not understood; there is always going to be a frontier towards smaller/higher-energy, because knowledge doesn't have any sensible limit.

Quantum effects could play a role when it comes to consciousness (just like they might play a role in photosynthesis), but it could also be entirely classical. Considering that we know very little about it at all, its hard to make any argument to begin with. One way or another, I don't think it changes all that much. It is certainly doesn't have anything to do with observers.