Philosophy

1856 readers

1 users here now

Discussion of philosophy

founded 3 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 2 months ago by BlueberryAlice@fedia.io 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

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Thanks for the link.

I think we're going in circles now. My previous comments had been addressing the paper and the methodology. Then you wanted to discuss the video instead, I gave you my opinion on the video. And now you want to discuss the paper again. Please read my previous comments, I already wrote it down.

And “correlation of what?” is a fair question

Also, calling it “garbage” without engaging the actual analysis [...]

I think it's the most important question. And entirely absent from the video. And no amount of added word vomit rectifies that. Hence "garbage video".

Let me phrase it another way: There's a standing stone in the forest here, 3km away. Let's measure how it "pushes". Oh, at 9.81 m/s², just like my human body pushes into the ground. Even the direction vector is nearly the same. My human body and that stone must be linked?! Correlation almost 1.0? Let's do more measurements, let's measure the light coming off from the stone and my skin. Wow! Same absorption lines in it! Me and the stone might share a consciousness??!? And even in the temporal domain, if I'm standing in my backyard, both me and the standing stone 3km away get wet and dry pretty much at the same time, same intervals. Non-locality? Are me and the stone the same thing?

Certainly not. And I didn't invent a new field of science here. You could do the peer-review with middle-school science knowledge. And none of that is "spurious-correlations" or lose relationships. All these three things are hard facts. They're not spurious at all. They are indeed connected!

You're doing the same here as me proving I'm linked to my Hinkelstein. You'd now need to explain why an EEG and quantum states. Why this measurement. Why ricci curvature. To a layman like me you'd even need to explain what a ricci curvature is, and why it applies in this specific set of circumstances. And where does this correlation come from? Ruling out "spurious" things does nothing, scientifically. I mean in my Hinkelstein isn't reflecting random light either, or getting wet, spuriously. I can in fact prove there is a real link and I happen to know the cause(s). That's where the science comes in.