@bunchberry@lemmy.world

I see.

However, as far as I understand, neither the claim that the universe is eternal nor the reason why it would be eternal has ever been scientifically proven.

That is why this question has traditionally belonged to the domains of philosophy and religion.

What Watanabe’s series of papers attempts to do is to provide a scientific demonstration of that very domain.

According to this framework, the universe begins from the co-creative process of Absolute Subjectivity, and reality is generated through the projection of Absolute Subjectivity onto Relative Subjectivity.

That Absolute Subjectivity, depending on the person, might be referred to as the Creator or as God.

@bunchberry@lemmy.world

What’s important in your point is this:

“The fact that a definite state does not appear in a probabilistic description does not imply that it does not exist in reality.” I agree with that.

However, your argument assumes a world that is already given and fully established as its starting point, doesn’t it?

Then the question is: under what conditions does that “world itself” come into being?

Probability distributions and Bayesian updates are merely descriptions of states after they have already been established.

But the real issue is: how do those distributions and outcomes come to be in the first place?

Or do you take the position that the world was created by God from the beginning?

I’m not rejecting that idea, of course.

@fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world

I’m Japanese, so I’m not very good at English.

I rely on AI for translation, but the ideas themselves are my own.

@youcantreadthis@quokk.au

I think that’s a really sharp perspective — I’ve honestly never met someone who sees it quite like that.

It actually feels very close to the viewpoint developed in a paper I’ve been working with.

There’s a version of this idea that’s been a bit more structurally organized, so if you’re interested, feel free to take a quick look.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399181220_Experimental_Evidence_of_Absolute_Subjectivity_Projection_Subjectivity_Intersection_Preceding_Quantum_Measurement_in_Hilbert_Phase_Geometry

This is a short video.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1avaxYY6gl-3kcnVhqSRwXY8TY-FLVFun/view?usp=drivesdk

@Iconoclast@feddit.uk

So, do you think that the self is a collection of consciousness?

From the standpoint of the paper, we do not consider the self to be a collection of consciousness.

Furthermore, we do not equate the self with the observing subject.

The observing subject is Absolute Subjectivity, which is neither something that appears as content within consciousness nor something that can be defined as a personal self belonging to an individual.

What is commonly referred to as the ‘self’ is merely a construct that appears within consciousness.

Absolute Subjectivity, on the other hand, is the foundational source of observation itself. Some may refer to it as the Creator or as God.

@fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world

I think that perspective makes a lot of sense. Especially the idea that “sound exists independently of observation” is pretty strong within a classical physics framework.

What’s interesting about this paper, though, is that it actually redefines the position of the observer itself. Instead of treating the observer as simply the one who measures—or as a device—it redefines the observer as a structure that makes the phenomenon of observation possible in the first place.

So even the question, “If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” gets reframed. It’s no longer about who is observing, but about under what structure reality itself becomes established.

This also connects to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. In this framework, observation isn’t just about “reading out a result”—it’s the process by which possibilities become actualized as reality.

That’s why experimental results where interference changes continuously don’t have to be interpreted as “strength of observation.” Instead, they can be understood as how fully the conditions for an observational structure are satisfied.

Even Schrödinger’s cat shifts meaning here. It’s less about “what’s inside the box” and more about at what point we consider reality to be fixed.

That’s a pretty big departure from the conventional idea of “observation = measurement.”

By the way, this is exactly what that paper is getting at— it redefines the observer not as a measuring agent, but as a structure. Even things like interference and detection strength are treated in terms of conditions for that structure, rather than degrees of measurement.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology

@KissYagni@programming.dev

Great question—this is exactly the issue the paper addresses.

In standard quantum theory, “observer” is not formally defined, which is why it’s unclear whether measurement happens at interaction, detection, or perception.

In this framework, measurement is not tied to consciousness or a single event. It occurs only when a coherence condition (SIC) is satisfied, fixing one outcome.

So the question is not who observes, but when coherence becomes sufficient to determine reality.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@luthis@lemmy.nz

This definition accurately reflects the conventional observer model in physics; however, from the perspective of the paper, it is insufficient.

In this statement, the observer is defined as “a separate particle that interacts with the system and gains some information about the system.” However, this description treats observation as an already established physical process and does not include the generative conditions under which such an interaction becomes an observation.

Within the framework of the paper, observation is not merely interaction. Rather, it is described as a process consisting of the projection of Absolute Subjectivity onto Relative Subjectivity (SI), followed by the establishment of geometric coherence through which reality becomes fixed (SIC).

Therefore, defining the observer as a particle external to the system and equating interaction with observation leaves the very conditions for the emergence of observation outside the theory.

This is the fundamental reason why conventional definitions of the observer fail to resolve the observer problem.

@bunchberry@lemmy.world

I’m not Satoru Watanabe.

It’s true that my account was suddenly banned, though. I honestly have no idea what part of it was supposed to be ban-worthy.

I mean, sure—if someone is claiming some unverified cure for diseases, that could be dangerous. But this is just presenting a theoretical idea.

Don’t you think it’s kind of absurd to just ban something like that without any notice?