Posted: Jul 30, 2010 7:37 pm
AMR wrote:As I understand classical QM
Then you understand bugger all, because QM is, by definition, non-classical. Originally, the term 'classical' applied only to the theories of Newton and Maxwell. Latterly, though, classical physics refers to any non-quantum physics.
the uncertainty principal requires observers;
Again, you understand bugger all. Collapse of the wavefunction requires observation, but the uncertainty principle does not.
what observers were there in the beginning of the universe (I also understand that interpretation is controversial, but then again so is your explanation above ["beyond any serious questioning"?])?
Well, this boils down to what constitutes an 'observer'. In reality, a particle can be an observer. Photons, for example, are observers (and in most cases of observation in QM experiments, it's actually a photon that is doing the observing).
But why should such a thing as Heisenberg uncertainty exist in the first place?
Invalid question: There's no good reason to suppose that there even is a 'why'.
What is more likely a roiling probabilistic mass/energy relationship that gives birth to a finely-tuned organic existence or just simply nothing?
What 'finely-tuned organic existence'? Oh, and please, don't cite the guff previously cited. When physicists talk about fine-tuning, they're not talking about the universe being fine-tuned, they're talking about the fact that certain parameters have to fall within very a very specific band of values if the hypothesised models are correct.
As for the question, it isn't about what is more likely, but about what has been demonstrated to be the case. In this instance, the simple fact that 'nothing' is a completely falsified concept in physical theories demonstrates that that isn't even an option.
and why should it generate a thing as improbable as our universe?
Improbable? Now you demonstrate your ignorance of probability as well. The probability of our local cosmic expansion's existence is exactly 1, which is the highest probability possible. It happened. Addressing the thrust of your question, though, 'why' is still an invalid question until such time as it can be demonstrated that 'why' is even a viable concept. Science doesn't do 'why', it only does 'how'.