@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

@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.

@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?

@hendrik@palaver.p3x.de

You're arguing against a much weaker claim than the one actually being made.

The point is not that “a brain and a quantum computer are in the same universe, so of course some correlation may exist.” That would be trivial. The actual question is whether independently constructed neural and quantum observables show selective, condition-dependent structural agreement rather than a uniform background similarity or a spurious correlation.

And “correlation of what?” is a fair question — but it is also a question the work addresses. The analysis is not just “brain vs. quantum computer” in a vague sense. It compares EEG-derived neural structure with independently generated quantum measurement structure. The issue is whether the agreement appears non-uniformly, under specific structural conditions, and whether it survives the obvious “this is just a loose correlation” objection.

So invoking gravity, shared physics, or generic nonlocality does not really answer the actual claim. Those are background facts. They do not explain selective structural alignment if that alignment is conditional rather than global.

Also, calling it “garbage” without engaging the actual analysis is not a scientific objection. It is just dismissal.

If you want the technical version rather than the video summary, here is the latest paper. It deals much more directly with the spurious-correlation objection, the structure being compared, and why the claim is not reducible to “everything is in the same universe”:

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

If you read that and still think the structure collapses into an ordinary spurious-correlation problem, I’d be interested in a specific methodological criticism.

@18107@aussie.zone

Yeah, I know. I just want to hear different perspectives.

@hendrik@palaver.p3x.de

There is a reason. This work proposes an entirely new theoretical framework, and as a result, there are currently no reviewers who are sufficiently familiar with its structure.

More importantly, what do you think about the content itself? A purely formal objection will be taken as a lack of understanding.

@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.

@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