> The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe had to develop humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) but that we are necessary to it’s existence, as it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe’s waves and probabilities from superposition into relatively concrete reality.
This is a misunderstanding of what quantum waveform collapse is. It requires an "observation", but not an intelligent observer. For example, in the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, the Geiger Counter is a perfectly valid observer.
I think you hit on the critical point where this theory goes awry, which is the idea that there is something special about human or animal intelligence which puts it in an entirely different category of other types of information gathering and synthesis. Another option is that the way people gather and synthesize information is just an advanced form of the same processes common to other dynamic systems, localized in layers of biology to create extreme forms of self-referential analysis. It's been a long debate, but the development of artificial intelligence is likely to significantly change the dominant perspective. If we continue to create ever more complex systems that behave intelligently but don't have the same kind of self-awareness as people perceive, we might be able to untangle the concepts of perception, intelligence, creativity, and the sense of self.
What's the criteria for what counts as an observer? Geiger counters are, but some photon detectors in a delayed choice quantum eraser experiment[1] aren't?
Basically there is no sharp division, but the more the observation spreads, the harder it is to reverse. For one isolated particle, it's easiest. Anything we can reliably read is basically permanent, like a bit flip in a computer.
So once a photon is detected, like by making a mark on a screen or camera, it's permanent. In the delayed-choice experiment this happens twice, once for the "interference pattern" and again after the choice.
If you accept that, which I think is intuitive, then it makes the DCQE much easier to grasp. If you want to understand the experiment better, I would recommend this thread:
I think you're misunderstanding the Schrodinger's cat paradox. First, the paradox is that the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box to observe it. Second, the whole point of the paradox is to show how absurd waveform collapse is.
This is a misunderstanding of what quantum waveform collapse is. It requires an "observation", but not an intelligent observer. For example, in the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, the Geiger Counter is a perfectly valid observer.