2
I recently came across a theory from Japan that tries to rethink physics from the standpoint of the observer. (fedia.io)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/philosophy@lemmy.world
25 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
[–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

Maybe not ban worthy but you are obviously "Satoru Watanabe" (assuming that is even a real person to begin with). All you do is make accounts to promote "his" papers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    @bunchberry@lemmy.world

    I’m really not Satoru Watanabe.

    I just find the ideas interesting and want to share them more widely to hear what different people think.

    I’m not an expert, so I might not fully understand the paper myself, but places like here and Lemmy have a lot of people who are knowledgeable about quantum physics and philosophy.

    Discussing it helps me deepen my own understanding.

    You too, actually.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I don't have anything to learn from crackpot woo. My interest in this subject is precisely to dispel the woo, because it is not only popular among Laymen like yourself, but also among academics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    @bunchberry@lemmy.world

    Through discussions like this, I start to see what kind of frameworks people are operating within.

    That alone makes it a valuable learning experience for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    It doesn't matter how much you learn if you don't value reason to begin with. Even if you are aware of the fact that theories like quantum mechanics can be explained in simple realist terms, if you just want to believe in bizarre things like people's consciousness can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical experiments, just thinking about a certain outcome really hard makes it more likely, then you would end up believing that just because you want to believe it and don't want to have a materialist worldview.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    @bunchberry@lemmy.world

    I think you may be misunderstanding what this theory is actually saying.

    It’s not about claims like “human consciousness influences quantum outcomes” or “thinking really hard about a result makes it more likely to happen.”

    More fundamentally, subjectivity and consciousness are not the same thing in this framework.

    Consciousness may be something that exists within humans — for example, in the brain.

    But subjectivity is defined differently: it is not something located within a person, and it is not something that can be measured.

    It’s a conceptual structure of a completely different kind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent