Are you that ‘creationism’ guy by any chance? If so will be interesting to see if you have anything new to say :)

Those who suggest the universe is conscious, we are fragments / fractals of the conscious universe observing itself, are correct. But our physical body and consciousness not only observes the universe, we are actually the particle consciousness in the very ACT of creating the universe. — ken2esq

Are you a panpsychist / a duellist / a pantheist/ a theosophist? What actual evidence do you have?
Are there any peer reviewed, published, scientific papers you can cite, to support your 'are correct,' claim in the quote above, or are you merely making 'pure conjecture,' statements based on your personal opinion? (which is ok, if your are, but you should establish that that is the case.)

This means that all the far galaxies we observe through telescopes actually did not exist until we peered through those telescopes and then collapsed the waves of probability out there into what we expected to see. Strangely, this means scientists often, if not always, create rather than discover. — ken2esq

So do you not exist for me, until I observe you? Does reading your post cause you to exist, for me? :rofl:
The 'for me' bit is the crucial notion, yes?
Carlo Rovelli often describes time and reality as an individualised experience. I can appreciate that pov, but I don't think such valid observations about spacetime and reference frames and individually interpreted worldview are significant enough to lead to anything like panpsychism/ dualism / pantheism or theosophism.

Reality is a dance / battle between two opposing forces, a consciousness that, by observing waves of probability, collapses them into particular reality. This is the process of creation. This I call the Particle Consciousness. On the other side is Wave Consciousness, which seeks to turn particular reality into waves, I think by blocking/destroying/hemming in the observations of the Particle Consciousness. — ken2esq

You're speculating and using your own speculation as evidence for your next points. Making your speculations eve more speculative the further the text goes on:

The fact we create reality with our EXPECTATIONS of what we will find, is a heavy responsibility. — ken2esq

This is nonsense.

Well, there is much more to this theory. — ken2esq

This isn't a theory, it is speculation, it isn't even a hypothesis.

If anyone has logic, reason, evidence, scientific studies, that refute this, I am happy to reconsider / revise. — ken2esq

Why don't you begin with logic, rational reasoning, actual scientific evidence for the actual claims because you have the burden of proof first. This way of presenting extremely incoherent speculations and then demand that others disprove them is a failure of philosophy and science. It's the exact opposite of the praxis required.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — Carl Sagan

No. We are all fragments of a larger observing consciousness, fragments of it. We are its eyes on the front lines of creation. What any of us sees, it thereby sees and creates. How would any of this mean that you individually need to see me before I exist for you?

If you consider that each human being is part of one creature with 8 billion eyes, and when that creature looks at probability waves, even with just one of those eyes, it collapses them, and out of the probabilities it could collapse to, it becomes that which the observing eye expected, that would be closer.

This is simplified since, in fact, humans are just one run on the ladder of life and conscious observation. Cells, tissues, organs, other organisms, organizations, all are conscious observers, fractals of the creative observer consciousness.

Bottom line is, this is the only explanation that resolves Fermi's Paradox. It also is not INCONSISTENT with anything we observe, which is a hell of a lot more than you can say for other metaphysical ideas.

People continue to struggle with the ramifications of the double-slit quantum experiment revealing how the act of observation collapses a probability wave into a particle. However, one thing we keep seeing is the fractal nature of reality. Thus, consider women and men, and how much they embody the quantum duality of waves and particles. Men are like a rock, women like ocean waves. You think it is coincidence this poetically parallels the quantum duality? Or would it make more sense to consider if this is not coincidence, then it means the quantum duality is reflected in the macro universe. And if you extend that, it may be the ultimate duality of the universe. Not good vs. evil. Probability wave vs. particular certainty. And what force have SCIENTISTS shown collapses waves into particles? Conscious observation...

It's almost as if observation is a creative force.... It is almost as if probability waves are waiting for conscious observation to collapse into a particular reality. Oh, wait, that is literally EXACTLY what the science says.

- ken

All the particles created in labs are just that, particles created in labs. There is no necessity that anything like these particles might actually exist in a supposed independent reality. We know that human beings have created many substances, even elements. They also create supposed fundamental particles.

What the wave function represents might be claimed to be some sort of independent reality, but those conceptions are so deficient and insufficient, that true reality remains completely unknown.

Calling something nonsense is not a logical or philosophical argument.

I am writing a theory of the universe that explains Fermi's paradox. The notion that we live in a conscious universe, that we are part of that conscious universe, experiencing itself, is not new or novel. Heck, it may be the most scientific of metaphysical postulations. Surely more logical than Christianity or Hinduism or Greek mythology.

So, the notion of a conscious universe is not my wild speculation, nor that we are parts of it observing itself. I merely add the suggestion that we are not conscious fragments of a conscious universe merely playing in the finished universe; rather, we are in the midst of that very act of creation and are actually the tools of that creation, the eyes, ears, limbs of the creator.

Look, let's agree on this if we can:
For theists (those who believe in any sort of intelligent creator, whether it is the conscious universe and we are part of it, or it is a separate being, separate from us and the universe it created), there are two main schools of thought for how the Universe was created:

(1) God basically waved a magic wand and instantaneously (well, within a week), created the entire Universe in its entirety.

(2) The universe itself is a conscious singularity, all matter and life are parts of it, humans are akin to cells on its body, neurons of its brain, eyes on the ground for it, etc, and this conscious universe is responsible for the laws of physics and initial location of matter and energy which led to the Big Bang and expanding Universe, and the Universe we live in is physically complete, but still expanding and changing without any further divine intervention. Basically, to the extent we are fragments of the conscious universe, we are playing in a finished sand box.

I am suggesting what seems a quite reasonable compromise between these two views, nothing crazy or unimaginable. Simply that both are partially true. The latter school of thought is correct that the universe is conscious. The former school of thought is correct that this "god" if you will is intentionally creating the entire universe, not just leaving its creation up the laws of physics. Quantum physics shows that conscious observation CREATES physicality from observation of probability waves, which frankly is the closest science has come to finding anything that appears at all like an act of divine creation.

So why NOT consider that instead of waving his and and creating the entire universe, God or the conscious singularity could not, or chose not, to create the universe in six days or the blink of an eye, but instead is creating it over hundreds of billions of years. Why not consider that a diety might take trillions of years to create the universe and as it does, that means that there is part of the Universe that is already created, and part of the Universe yet to be created. Hmmm...what would the part of the Universe that awaits being turned into a particular physical reality look like...... Hmmm.. We don't know, but what is the BEST GUESS based on our science? Probability waves.

The theory that the Universe is being actively created by a conscious singularity through the process of expanding observation of a surrounding, seemingly infinite, ocean of probability waves is not crazy speculation. It is literally application of Occam's Razor and reason and the most current science to improve on past, less advanced theories of metaphysical truth.

No, my theory is NOT "true." Of course not. But I believe it is MORE TRUE than anything yet postulated. It explains Fermi's paradox. It is consistent with the fractal nature of reality. It actually EXPLAIN why the double slit experiment showed what it showed about observation collapsing probabiliy waves into particular reality. Who else has a spiritual or metaphysical theory or even a scientific theory that explains WHY this exists like this?

Seriously, even if this theory were entirely wrong, it still deserves kudos for finding a logical way to wrap up all these scientific loose ends into a fairly basic new age spirituality.

And, yes, the WHOLE THING is a theory, based on the fact we observe things in nature that we cannot reconcile. Well, genius, THIS RECONCILES THEM. That is the point. Find one thing science has observed in nature that this does NOT reconcile!! If a theory reconciles our observations and no other theory does, then what does that mean? You reject it because it is new? Seriously?

This is philosophy, not a hard science. It's not physics. But if you cannot find any place where my theory is inconsistent with reality, the way a person walking on water is inconsistent, and you cannot think of any BETTER explanation of why observation collapses probability waves into particular certainty, you probably should not be so casually dismissive of this.

I will agree there is one really seemingly crazy suggestion offered here: That when a conscious observer looks at a place where there had been probability waves, and thereby collapses them into a particular physical reality, I suggest that the form this reality takes is based on the expectation of that observer. So wherever there is quantum uncertainty, when we collapse it, we CHOOSE what it collapses into.

This seems crazy because it seems to give us a bit of magical power. However, FIRST, I will point out that the notion we, as fragments of a conscious creator, have a spark of divine creative power, is very popular and widely accepted, and it is actually the working theory for why daily affirmations, vision boards, and other forms of affirmative thinking seems to miraculous work. If you believe in it. I did not until coming up with this theory which now reconciles THAT effect too, if that is real. Yes, thank you, I'll take a bow. But also, as a second point, if we are conscious fragments of a divine creator, we are its eyes on the ground, why would we NOT be its eyes ON THE FRONT LINE as well as its AGENTS OF CREATION ON THE FRONT LINE. Is this crazier than thinking that, instead, we were just created for the Universe to masturbate within its fully finished Universe? Frankly, my theory fills in whole SHITLOAD of "why is like this?" "and why would this be like this?" It provides answers that, though not proven, are also PERFECTLY REASONABLE. Name any other spiritual conceptualization that does that. You cannot.

Again, I am 100% sure my theory is wrong, that it is incomplete, oversimplified, and/or partially inaccurate. But if you consider what I am reconciling with this theory, the "why" questions it actually answers rather than just talking about divine ineffability, I think you must agree it is not something to be just readily dismissed for lack of "proof" What the hell religious or spiritual conceptualization are you hiding that has any of this "proof" you seem to crave? None? That's what I thought.

Lastly, have you considered how all the greatest scientific leaps were scoffed when first presented? Do you really want to scoff at this because it is too much of a leap WITHOUT actually giving me one logical or evidentiary argument against it? Basically just rejecting it for novelty?!!! Really?!!! Novelty???

Ken

I don't think you understand the double slit experiment at all. It is not the creation of novel particles it is just normal light waves such as are all around us, and seeing how the electrons that comprise the light waves exist in a state of uncertainty as probability waves until observed / detected. There is literally NO QUESTION that light waves and their electrons exist outside the laboratory. I'm not sure what the heck you are even talking about. I'm not sure you know.

Yes, conceptualization of reality are lacking. So I'm literally GIVING YOU ONE that reconciles EVERYTHING. A unifying theory of realty that reconciles quantum physics and the double-slit experiment, the fractal nature of reality all around us, why daily affirmations and vision boards and similar affirmation / visualization techniques seem to work, WHY we live in a universe where there are probability waves that observation will collapse into particular reality -- anyone else come up with a conceptualization that answers that? Any other spiritual concept or religion answer that? No? I did not think so.

Yes, the Universe is a mystery, and we have very limited ability conceptualize it. So what? Are you suggestion we do not try? We do not try to improve upon our utterly flaws and pointless past conceptualizations that are so inconsistent with things we observe in the Universe? Your whole philosophical approach seems to be pessimistic defeatism. Is that accidental, or is that literally your point of view?

Ken

I am writing a theory of the universe that explains Fermi's paradox. The notion that we live in a conscious universe, that we are part of that conscious universe, experiencing itself, is not new or novel. — ken2esq

No, you are cherry picking concepts together and call it a theory when its not a theory or hypothesis, but wild speculation. Evidence must bind together as premises towards a conclusion, that's not what you're doing here.

No, my theory is NOT "true." Of course not. But I believe it is MORE TRUE than anything yet postulated. — ken2esq

This is called bias. You are biased towards your own belief without any actual evidence to support it. Why is your belief more true than the facts that can be extrapolated out of the latest scientific consensus?

And, yes, the WHOLE THING is a theory, based on the fact we observe things in nature that we cannot reconcile. — ken2esq

It's not a theory, you have no actual evidence, you have wild speculations or interpretations of speculations that you use as premisses for your conclusion.

This is philosophy, not a hard science. It's not physics. — ken2esq

Philosophy still requires due diligence in logic and rational reasoning. You treat philosophy like it's something that's about just wild speculation, which it's not. You still need to follow the praxis of philosophical arguments.

And since its not physics either, you have neither the logical rational reasoning of philosophy, nor the scientific rigor of physics. Then what have you other than wild speculation and nothing more?

So wherever there is quantum uncertainty, when we collapse it, we CHOOSE what it collapses into. — ken2esq

We do not choose how it collapses. I don't think you understand what the collapsing wave in quantum mechanics is about. The collapse due to observation has nothing to do with us as humans, it has more to do with the uncertainty principle and how measurement introduces forces onto the measured particles so that you inflict change that wouldn't be there when not measured.

The pseudo-religious conclusion that we as a consciousness "choose" the collapse has more to do with a misunderstanding of the physics. It's what happens when people are confused by the science and doesn't bother to actually understand it before using it as a premise in their argument.

Lastly, have you considered how all the greatest scientific leaps were scoffed when first presented? Do you really want to scoff at this because it is too much of a leap WITHOUT actually giving me one logical or evidentiary argument against it? Basically just rejecting it for novelty?!!! Really?!!! Novelty??? — ken2esq

They were scoffed at by religious people or by the community before evidence were presented. Those theories didn't magically become serious theories before they were proven. First, they were presented with careful rational reasoning, either with deduction or mathematical calculations, and then proven in experiments. So if you feel like the theory is scoffed at, then you need to do what all of them did, prove your theory right. But no, you are demanding that others prove you wrong.

You aren't doing philosophy or science at all. You scream for others to accept your wild speculations as some possibility. All while you clearly show you don't understand physics or general common philosophical praxis.

Once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

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. — Lionino

Exactly, especially when it uses a faulty interpretation and then build an entire conclusion around that faulty interpretation as a premise.

You fail to recognize that when we observe various phenomena we cannot explain, and people come up with various individual explanations for each of them -- all of which are complete speculation, regardless how long they've been around, with no actual evidence -- and then some one suggests a single theory that explains all of them, though the single theory has no scientific proof, its greater simplicity gives it greater credence, all else being equal.

All metaphysical notions are pure speculation. We can still evaluate their internal logical and the extent to which they explain and reconcile with what we observe. Newness and novelty are NOT flaws any more than age supports a theory.

Ken

You fail to recognize that when we observe various phenomena we cannot explain, and people come up with various individual explanations for each of them — ken2esq

That's not how science and philosophy works, and you attempt to do claims in both here.

though the single theory has no scientific proof, its greater simplicity gives it greater credence, all else being equal. — ken2esq

No it doesn't, this is nonsensical logic.

All metaphysical notions are pure speculation. We can still evaluate their internal logical and the extent to which they explain and reconcile with what we observe. Newness and novelty are NOT flaws any more than age supports a theory. — ken2esq

I think its entirely possible you have been refuted in this exact way. The logic and explanative power have been found wanting. I tend to agree.

simplicity gives it greater credence, all else being equal. — ken2esq

All else is never equal.

:rofl:

My best evidence for this is that it resolves the Fermi paradox, which is that we definitely SHOULD have picked up radio waves / other indicia of alien life from the older parts of the Universe, and it is inexplicable that we have not. — ken2esq

You're on thin ice here. Quite apart from the immense distances between possible life-bearing planets with advanced civilisations, there might also be immense periods of time between them. Considering the age of the Universe, the period of time that h. sapiens has possessed technology sufficient to send and receive information to and from deep space is a mere blip - less than one hundred years. Now consider the odds of two such cultures existing at the same time in the immensity of time as well as space. Compare that to the striking of a match in an immense space, where the odds of two matches being alight simultaneously, and within range, might be imperceptibly small. That would easily account for the non-discovery of other technologically-advanced cultures by us.

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. — Lionino

That's unfortunate - it suggests that discussion of the topic is reserved to the priviledged few who can understand the mathematics, when even one of the most illustrious exponents of the discipline said that nobody understand quantum physics. Furthermore physics is held to be paradigmatic as a model for scientific knowledge, generally, so it is quite appropriate to discuss the implications of physics for other aspects of existence, and there are discussions of the philosophical implications of quantum physics by various authors which are quite intelligible, notwithstanding the nonsense that is sometimes written about it.

That aside they are correct in the view that some of the most egregious examples of Dunning Kruger syndrome have been speculations on QM. This kind of drivel just makes it harder to locate the more credible speculation, surely?

It's not that hard to sort the wheat from the chaff with a bit of reading. Writing off the whole subject on that account just turns out to be a dodge a lot of the time.

Writing off the whole subject on that account just turns out to be a dodge a lot of the time. — Wayfarer

I think that if youre not talking to physicists or academic philosophers, thats probably a good move for self-preservation and time-saving :P

I think that if youre not talking to physicists or academic philosophers, thats probably a good move for self-preservation and time-saving :P — AmadeusD

:up:

I do have an account on physicsforum.com and post there from time to time, generally to ask questions. They're a very professional forum with high posting standards, but they generally give very short shrift to philosophical questions, on the grounds they're 'physicists not philosophers'. Here and on other philosophy forums I've been a member of, questions about the philosophical implications of physics are often dismissed on the grounds that 'we're philosophers not physicists' (although that said there are a couple of contributors here quite knowledgeable about the topic.)

I once made the observation that LaPlace's daemon is often touted as a kind of model which validates determinism, and that the Newtonian model of a mechanistic universe is still very influential in popular culture. Yet the philosophical implications of the discovery of the uncertainty principle and the observer problem are arguably more profound - yet they're dismissed on the basis that if you're not a physicist then you don't understand it. So:

Every time we observe anything not yet observed, we thereby collapse the waves of probability in that newly observed area, and replace them with fixed reality, and what we replace them with is what we EXPECT. We literally choose what we find around each unexplored corner of the universe. We are on the forefront of creation. — ken2esq

I think there is a grain of truth in this, but I emphasis 'grain'. And here moreso than many other places, a little learning is dangerous. But this 20-year-old article on physicist John Wheeler's 'participatory universe' can be interpreted to say something like that. And these ideas have become part of the cultural milieu, for better or worse. I've read some of the better popular books on it, and I notice many of them bear sub-titles about 'the battle for reality' or 'the struggle for the soul of science'. And why is that? Precisely because they undermine the instinctive conviction that the Universe exists out there now, just as it would without any observers in it.


From John Wheeler, 'Law Without Law'.

Having said that, I might add this second graphic from the same John Wheeler article, Law without Law, about the inter-relationship of theory and observation.

I will agree the supposition on how I have explained Fermi's paradox with the theory that our observations including scientific study of unknowns thereby are creating the universe from our expectations, so that we are actually the oldest part of the universe and the older parts are just what we expected to find when we looked that way, is very thin ice. Probably the most thin of any of it. I'm kind of rejecting it myself.

I still think the theory we are not just eyes of a conscious self-creating universe, but are its tools of creation, is the most reasonable to reconcile what we observe, at least justifies why observation collapses wave probabilities into particles, explains our purpose in life, to expand into the unobserved universe while developing our creativity so we can, when we observe the unobserved and there by create reality, we are doing so with with style.

Note, our CREATIVITY is agreed by all to be a virtue. Why? Why do we love make believe? Fantasy? Movies? The urge to create -- to be creative, not just to build any uninspired, repetitive crap -- seems fundamental to us.

Ken

Note the 'iron rods' of observation in the caption of the figure above. There is an element that is imagined, but also an element that is given, and that part is 'iron', i.e. unyielding.

Hello everyone. This is my first intervention. This is my position on the matter.

It seems to me that there is a confusion about what "measurement" means. When we measure [for our case in the process of wave function collapse] 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. Introducing consciousness as the cause of quantum decoherence or wave function collapse is a very common error in interpretations of quantum physics: Transcategorical Error. This error consists of introducing notions and concepts that in fact do not and cannot operate in scientific practice.

That is why, taking the above into consideration, instead of using the notions of consciousness and the like, which are rather confusing, we should prefer to describe the phenomenon as the moment in which an isolated or closed system opens up for the environment to intervene. . This frees us from believing that the physical world is in a state of permanent decoherence waiting to be "perceived" so that it acquires the classical properties of physics. In a certain sense it is like saying that the universe measures itself, but this measurement is nothing more than the moment in which the environment intervenes in a closed and coherent system.

To summarize: The objects of study in physics must maintain ontological continuity in such a way that they can be causally-related to each other.

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:

It is not the creation of novel particles it is just normal light waves such as are all around us, and seeing how the electrons that comprise the light waves exist in a state of uncertainty as probability waves until observed / detected. — ken2esq

You keep referring to "probability waves", but you give absolutely no explanation as to what a probability wave is. So you claim to have a grand theory which employs a mystical substance, "probability waves", along with the self-evident reality of "consciousness", to magically solve all the problems of physics. That's fine, but it really doesn't do anything for metaphysics unless you can show how this mystical substance, which your mind attributes magical powers to in your fantasies, has any real existence.

Bottom line is, this is the only explanation that resolves Fermi's Paradox. — ken2esq

You insist that this theory of a magical mystical substance called "probability waves", along with an equally obscure conception of "consciousness", is "the only" explanation which resolves "Fermi's paradox". And this is how you justify the credibility of your theory. Perhaps you ought to explain how you understand Fermi's paradox, and what leads you to believe that your theory is the only theory which could explain it.

All I see is a very naive form of Cartesian dualism in which "matter" is replaced by "probability waves" and "mind" is replaced by "consciousness".

It seems to me that there is a confusion about what "measurement" means. When we measure [for our case in the process of wave function collapse] 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. Introducing consciousness as the cause of quantum decoherence or wave function collapse is a very common error in interpretations of quantum physics: Transcategorical Error. This error consists of introducing notions and concepts that in fact do not and cannot operate in scientific practice.

That is why, taking the above into consideration, instead of using the notions of consciousness and the like, which are rather confusing, we should prefer to describe the phenomenon as the moment in which an isolated or closed system opens up for the environment to intervene. . This frees us from believing that the physical world is in a state of permanent decoherence waiting to be "perceived" so that it acquires the classical properties of physics. In a certain sense it is like saying that the universe measures itself, but this measurement is nothing more than the moment in which the environment intervenes in a closed and coherent system. — JuanZu

With reference to the title of this thread, "science" in its modern form creates, rather than discovers reality. With this context in mind, we ought to properly respect the fact that the supposed "isolated or closed system" which the physicist produces in some form of laboratory, is completely artificial. This artificial situation is not at all natural, because such closed systems do not actually exist naturally. Furthermore, the assumed closedness of the supposed "closed system" is not real, or a true closure, because there is an issue of how, or where, does the energy which is lost to entropy escape the parameters of "the closed system".

So we can see that the use of this type of assumption, "an isolated or closed system" is problematic in two distinct ways. First, the so-called "closed system" is an artificial arrangement which does not at all represent anything natural. Second, 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. It is impossible within the real physical world that we inhabit, to have a fully "closed system". Therefore we need to be very wary when interpreting observations which reference "an isolated or closed system", because we can be absolutely certain that this is a faulty and untrue concept, the use of which may significantly mislead us.

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.

So? Your inability to see is not my problem. Tell me the illogic. What is wrong with proposing the Universe is created by conscious observation of probability waves?

Tell you what: Google Schroedinger's cat, read up on the concept of probability waves being intrinsic to reality. You seem to be bereft of basic science to claim probability waves are "magic."

Ken