Sal Rapes the Quantum

[This post was a bit rushed, so I've edited a few times to add details I initially intended but forgot. I doubt I'll edit further. -- Ed.]

Blake and I were discussing Sal's latest nonsense earlier. Blake is the physics expert here, but let's face it, he's sick. So I'll substitute for him in pointing out the serious flaws in Sal's argument. Sal essentially claims that, since quantum systems are time-reversible and only collapse into classical states through observation, there must be an "ultimate observer" providing measurements to give us the bondary conditions of classical physics. Problems:

1. Sal is restricting himself to the classical Copenhagen interpretation in explaining "wave-function collapse". There are several other interpretational frameworks that physicists use in quantum theory, such the Everett (Many-Worlds) and Consistent Histories interpretations, neither of which, as far as I know, hold the observer as fundamental.
2. Sal ignores the experimentally verified phenomenon of quantum decoherence. Decoherence provides an explanatory framework for the appearance of "wave-function collapse" by formalizing how quantum systems interact with each other and their environment. The collapse associated with measurement in quantum mechanics no longer requires a mechanismless handwave like "observation".
3. Sal attempts to say that the existence of an "ultimate observer", i.e. god, "implies intelligent design". Perhaps Sal would like to revisit logic 101 to rediscover the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions. Assuming there is a point at which intelligent design contrasts with our current understanding of evolution, said current understanding is completely compatible with the argument he is proposing.
4. Even in the Copenhagen interpretation, the result of a measurement can only be known within a certain probability. This fact plays a prominent role in quantum computation, where linear-composed coherent qubits return a classical result with a given probability after they are measured. That certainly implies an upper-bound on the knowledge any quantum mechanical observer can have, and such a being would be prohibited from being "All-Knowing". And furthermore, the observer doesn't have any control over the result of its observations. If God is an observer, it's certainly more a hapless, disconnected deity that the one Sal apparently wants us to believe is implied by his argument.

That's all for me, others can jump in at their leisure.