Philosophy

1813 readers

20 users here now

Discussion of philosophy

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to rethink physics from the standpoint of the observer. (fedia.io)

submitted 17 hours ago by BlueberryAlice@fedia.io to c/philosophy@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to rethink physics from the standpoint of the observer.

Instead of treating reality as something fully given “out there,” it suggests that reality may emerge when certain structural conditions of the observer are satisfied.

What I found interesting is that it reframes the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics as a problem about how the observer is defined.

Philosophically, it feels closely related to the question of whether observation is passive or constitutive of reality.

It’s summarized in a short video, so if you’re interested, I’d really appreciate your thoughts: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c714dc8c-eb93-4317-b369-8e57fac880fc?artifac

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 0 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

@paraphrand@lemmy.world

It’s based on a recent paper — I just summarized the key points and had an app help put it together, so it didn’t take that long.

But the theory itself is quite deep.

What did you think about the content?

[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

@paraphrand@lemmy.world

I understand that concern—I’ve received similar comments about the lack of peer review.

However, I believe peer review is meaningful only when there are experts who are capable of evaluating the work in detail. In this case, the theory is quite new, and there are currently no researchers working within the same framework who could properly review it.

It’s true that the main empirical basis is the nonlocal EEG–quantum experiment. But according to the papers, what is observed goes beyond just finding “some correlation” in data—the correlations appear under specific structural conditions, which is what led to the development of the theory.

Also, instead of relying on peer review at this stage, the experimental methods and procedures are fully disclosed in detail. The author explicitly states that anyone can attempt to replicate the experiment.

So if there is skepticism, the idea is: rather than just debating it conceptually, it can actually be tested directly.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 2 hours ago

Maths, quantum physics, medicine, ... are well-researched fields. There's no reason to believe this couldn't be peer-reviewed?!

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I'm really distracted by the AI slop. Sorry. It harms the credibility of your post.

There is a long tradition of crackpot physics theories. And throwing AI into the mix like this isn't helping your surface level credibility. Nor is the fact this is one of your first posts after making a new account.

That’s just how it goes with such a thing online. Sorry.