How is the existence of an outside world a silly question? It is quite the recurrent question in the history of philosophy.

What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves? — ken2esq

Because it makes no sense. Probability waves are mathematical/physical descriptions which have predictive power. They might or might not exist in real life. If you are talking about a particle in particular that is described by a probability wave, the universe is not created by its observation as there needs to be a universe to begin with for that observation to even happen.

Probability waves are not intrinsic to reality, again: it is an equation whose ontology is unknown, hence the different interpretations of QM.

What even is your background in physics to be abusing these concepts?

After 13 pages, any conclusions so far?

This artificial situation is not at all natural, because such closed systems do not actually exist naturally — Metaphysician Undercover

What? Isn't a lab part of nature? When we need to calculate the voltage a heater/boiler must take, should we not treat the heater as a closed system because supposedly it is not natural?

I understand you are saying these things under the premise on which OP is working on, that science is creating reality, but even then it is not accurate to say that isolated systems don't exist as much as "red" does not exist. The use of closed system in science is not even a matter of whether a true isolated system, without quantum flunctuations, can actually exist in real life — cellestial mechanics or electrodynamics are not concerned about quantum fluctuations.

how, or where, does the energy which is lost to entropy escape the parameters of "the closed system" — Metaphysician Undercover

What energy is lost to entropy? Entropy and energy are different measurements.

our failed attempts to create such a "closed system" demonstrate to us, through the use of the scientific method and inductive reasoning, that such a theory, that there is a thing which could be known as "an isolated or closed system" has actually been demonstrated to be false — Metaphysician Undercover

1 - closed systems absolutely exist — everywhere. Any place where there is no flow of mass is closed. A hermetically sealed bottle is a closed system. Isolated systems for all practical purposes also exist. A hydrogen atom floating in the vacuum of space is an isolated system.
2 - closed or isolated system are not theories. There is no theory in physics where it says "there is a (true) closed system", physics does not make existential statements even though it relies on them. Open, closed, isolated system are abstract concepts used to specify the conditions of a system. You could replace those words by ΔE = 0, Δm > 0, Δm = 0, if it helps you solve the exercise faster.

when even one of the most illustrious exponents of the discipline said that nobody understand quantum physics — Wayfarer

That would make you imagine that laymen are far from being able to productively approach the topic. I do not see chemistry and biology showing up in discussions of philosophy, ever. Although there is a real gap between those two and physics, I speculate that its frequent occurrence in pop culture and pop philosophy has something to do with physics envy.

Besides, I do not see how quantum mechanics figures into free will at all, being a metaphysical problem. Uncertainty principle does not say anything about the world itself but about the measurements we take of it, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, deterministic or random, pilot-wave or Copenhagen, do not give us or take away free will. Even if the world is random, our choices may be determined by it, and even if the world is deterministic, the problem of consciousness and the vertiginous question remain.

we are not “Becoming aware” of a phenomenon, but rather we are physically intervening in the state of quantum coherence, which causes the collapse of the wave function — JuanZu

:up:

Currently finishing: the Iliad.
Though I like to think I understand well where it comes from and why it is the way it is; to a modern reader like me, it feels sluggish at times (catalogue of ships!) and I hate when the plot is interrupted by a needless metaphor like when the sailor seeing the island from afar has to take a detour to avoid his ship from sinking into the sand bank that separates the great ocean from the shore.

Institutio Oratoria by Quintilianus.
I am in for the grammar and philology, but I guess I will take the pedagogy as well.

I don't understand how this strawman of "atheists/physicalists/secularists/materialists have no justification for their morals" is so common. It is like the reproductors of this strawman completely ignore the existence of deontology, virtue ethics, consequentialism (ethics 102), and admit that only ethical egotism is possible, one justified by wanting to go to heaven (or not be reborn as a pig) and the other justified by hedonism. It says more about the accuser than the accused.

The latter, obviously. Most of the replies haven't managed to hold "all things equal," and are evading the question. — Leontiskos

Because things cannot be hold equal. Each of these worldviews have implications besides simply holding them.

Everytime the word "quantum" comes up anywhere except a discussion about physics, I know for a fact whatever is coming is going to be nonsense.
No, I don't have any evidence for this belief, it is a dogma of mine.

I agree, it sounds like a schizo rant.

Theme of the thread:

I have edited and updated my answer on the Cartesian proof to be more complete.

You might be interested in Descartes proof of the outside world, from the MM:

I will conclude that, if the objective reality of any of my ideas is such that I clearly recognize that it is neither formally nor eminently in me and that, consequently, I cannot myself be the cause of it, it necessarily follows that I do not exist alone in the world, but that there is still something that exists and that is the cause of this idea; whereas, if such an idea is not found in me, I will have no argument that can convince me and assure me of the existence of anything other than myself; for I have searched them all carefully and have not, until now, found any.

The issue then is that the proof is only a tool to prove God. He does not see in the outside world anything that he himself could not have generated. The only idea that must come from an outside source is his/our idea of God:

Now between these ideas, apart from the one which represents me to myself, from which there can be no difficulty here, there there is another which represents to me a God, others corporeal and inanimate things, others angels, others animals, and finally others which represent men similar to me. But as for the ideas which represent other men to me, or animals, or angels, I easily understand that they can be formed by mixing and composing other ideas that I have of bodily things and of God, although besides me there were no other men in the world, neither any animals nor any angels. And as far as the ideas of corporeal things are concerned, I do not recognize nothing so great or so excellent, which does not seems like it could come from myself

Later on the sixth meditation, we see the simple argument that if there were something in my mind causing the perception of the, materially false, outside world, I would be aware of it. Not being aware of it, it must be the case that it comes from outside. However in earlier meditation he speaks about a possibly unknown part of the mind:

“Can it, however, also happen that these same things which I suppose not to be because they are unknown to me, are not actually different from me, who I know?”

and

“[…] more distinctly known than that part of myself which I do not know and which does not affect the imagination;”

Though these possible unknown parts of his nature would not affect the imagination, he claims. There is no reason prima facie that some unknown part of the mind would not affect it, but defining the mind as at least things that I am conscious of, it can't be the case. As SEP puts it:

For from the additional premise that nothing can be in my mind of which I am unaware, it follows that if sensations were being produced by some activity in my mind, I’d be aware of that activity on the occasion of its operation. Since I’m not thus aware, it follows that the sensation I’m having is produced by a cause external to my mind. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

That alone proves the outside world, be it things or an evil or good god. When it comes to a physical world, Descartes' approach is not without trouble, as is explained in the following SEP article.
The article “Descartes’ Theory of Ideas and the Existence of the Physical World” by Şahabeddin Yalçin might be useful. Also SEP's article on that part of Cartesian philosophy.