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

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Does this person have any peer-reviewed papers? They all seem to be on ResearchGate or academia.edu. According to his profile on the former, his credentials are a bachelor of business administration, and being "founder of SIEL subjectivity intersection emergence lab". This is not super confidence inducing.

It seems the foundational evidence for his theories is his "Non local EEG-Quantum Experiment" which claims to find correlations between EEGs and the outputs of a distant cloud quantum computer. I haven't looked at the details but my concern would be that if you look broadly enough for some pattern in data you will certainly find one.

[–] bunchberry@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I don't really buy any of these exotic approaches to QM because no one has ruled out the non-extraordinary explanation that it is just a statistical theory. People all pretend it was ruled out by Bell's theorem, but all Bell's theorem shows is that it cannot be a local statistical theory. Okay, then it is non-local. Nothing more needs to be said. All the "paradoxes" that these exotic interpretations try to "solve" arise from starting with the position that it is not just a statistical theory. I really have trouble entertaining exotic extraordinary viewpoints if we have a trivially simple, intuitive, and consistent viewpoint right on the table which has not been ruled out.

[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago

@bunchberry@lemmy.world

Even if a nonlocal statistical theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, that would still remain at the level of describing outcomes, wouldn’t it?

In reality, the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity has remained unresolved for over 150 years, and the deeper issue is that the framework itself does not define the structure of observation.

This theory, on the other hand, addresses that very point by defining the conditions under which outcomes are realized— that is, the structure of observation itself— and treats quantum mechanics and relativity as aspects of a single generative process.

In that sense, the question is not whether it can be described statistically, but whether the theory is structurally complete.

From that perspective, this framework provides a more consistent explanation.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

How much work did you put into that video?

[–] 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.