schrodinger's backside

Two nice subjects I want to address in this thread.First, Quantum Mechanics, Dr. Heisenberg and Dr. Schrodinger’s poor little cat.
Not an issue in anything other than the quantum realm. When you look at the math you find that the uncertainty in position/momentum or time/frequency become increasingly smaller for increasingly larger numbers of particles to the point that such uncertainties become negligible for something the size of a dust mote let alone a planet or a Universe. Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation, which Schrodinger originally devised his cat to refute, does not apply outside the sub-atomic. This is another instance of philosophers taking a scientific principle out of context and trying to find some kind of grand universal meaning.Second is this notion that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for the production of life. But what do we really see in the fine-structure constant, the mass/charge of the electron, the speed of light, the various Planck constants and all the other Universal constants we have come to know and love?If these constants were fine-tuned, by God or Nature, for the evolution of life then we should see prodigious life throughout the galaxy. The Drake Equation, even constrained by the Fermi Paradox, would have to exhibit some rather aggressive values. We do not see this.What we do see are stellar objects. Lots of them.The number of data points showing life equals one. Even an aggressive extrapolation of Drake equals but a few tens of thousands. The number of data points showing stellar objects is in the hundreds of billions.It would appear that if this universe was fine-tuned by some god, Spinozian or otherwise, it was fine-tuned to produce stars. We just happened to hitch a ride on a large moving train. In this fine-tuned Universe, life is but a minor postscript.

I have an issue with requiring an observation by any kind of sentient being to bring the Universe into existence. The Universe existed from (we presume) the big bang on, well prior to the materials necessary to create and sustain life. No sentience needed for the Universe to exist.For a Universe to be said to be "fine-tuned" for life, in my opinion, requires an abundance of life as evidence of such. Your observation that "the probability is very high that we live in a universe where we are alone/very far away from other sentience" is a data point against such fine-tuning. Since we see so little life the proposition fails.My point being that if some insist that the Universe was/is in some why fine-tuned by whatever mechanism, the preponderance of the evidence at this time indicates the fine-tuning produced prodigious stellar objects not life. Life, apparently, was an incidental aftereffect.Further, I find the very idea of any kind of "fine-tuning" untenable. Until we have more comprehensive cosmologic theories that may explain why the constants have the values they do, we cannot make any valid assumptions about any fine-tuning for stars, life, chocolate pudding or otherwise. We may find that this Universe, and any other Universe, had no other option.But, then, maybe not.I understand physics does not invoke any determining "fine-tuning" entity. That is why I cited Spinoza in my message.Finally, as a physicist (I've watched your posts, Spelunker, and I know and respect your abilities) outside of the smallest distances and the smallest timescales can any particle avoid the environment in the reality of this universe? And since distance is irrelevant to entanglement can you really say it extends the quantum realm into classical distances?Edited by AZPaul3, : Cuz I wanted to.