BlueberryAlice

joined 21 hours ago
sorted by: new top controversial old
I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to rethink physics from the standpoint of the observer. in c/philosophy@lemmy.world
[–] 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.

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. in c/physics@mander.xyz
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago

@aldhissla@piefed.world

Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.

What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.

That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.

As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. in c/technology@beehaw.org
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago

@reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net

I get your point — if we don’t know what it actually achieves, it can feel meaningless to discuss.

But I think this isn’t just philosophy, it’s physics.

Most people assume that reality already exists independently, and rarely question that assumption.

What this paper is trying to do is to uncover the mechanism by which reality itself is generated.

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to rethink physics from the standpoint of the observer. in c/philosophy@lemmy.world
[–] 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.

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. in c/physics@mander.xyz
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

@alzymologist@sopuli.xyz

I think that perspective—that it makes sense as metaphysics—is certainly understandable.

However, this research does not remain within that framework. It is constructed within the framework of physics, as it formulates hypotheses based on experimental data and further validates them through reproducible experiments.

If you’re interested, I’ve shared the original paper below. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the actual data and structure, and share your honest thoughts.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403024962

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. in c/technology@beehaw.org
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 5 hours ago

@ComradeMiao@beehaw.org

If the previous link didn’t open, please use this one instead.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403024962

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. in c/physics@mander.xyz
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 5 hours ago

@farngis_mcgiles@sh.itjust.works

“The hypothesis in this video is derived from experimental data presented in the original paper. If you’d like, I can share it with you—I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts after you’ve had a chance to read it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403024962

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. in c/technology@beehaw.org
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 10 hours ago

@ComradeMiao@beehaw.org

Thanks for your comment. The content is based on the original paper, not the LLM itself. Here is the source:

https://zenodo.org/records/19359604

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to rethink physics from the standpoint of the observer. in c/philosophy@lemmy.world
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 0 points 12 hours ago (3 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?

6
I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to rethink physics from the standpoint of the observer. (fedia.io)
 

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

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. in c/science@lemmy.world
[–] BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 1 points 17 hours ago

@betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world

そのリンクは確かに微妙かも笑 内容はシンプルで、 「現実が先にあるんじゃなくて、観測者の構造が揃ったときに現実が成立する」っていう話 相対性理論と量子力学をそこから繋ごうとしてる

0
I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. (fedia.io)
 

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer.

It attempts to connect relativity and quantum mechanics through the concept of the observer, which I found quite interesting.

I found a video explaining the idea, so I’m sharing it here: 👉 https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c714dc8c-eb93-4317-b369-8e57fac880fc?artifac

Curious to hear what people think.

-5
I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer. (fedia.io)
 

I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to explain physical phenomena based on the structure of the observer.

It attempts to connect relativity and quantum mechanics through the concept of the observer, which I found quite interesting.

I found a video explaining the idea, so I’m sharing it here: 👉 https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c714dc8c-eb93-4317-b369-8e57fac880fc?artifac

Curious to hear what people think.