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
@bunchberry@lemmy.world
I think we may be talking slightly past each other.
What I mean is that interpretations of quantum mechanics remain at the level of describing the distribution of outcomes, but do not explain why a single outcome is actually realized.
In other words, a statistical theory can tell us what distribution appears, but not why a specific result becomes fixed in a given event.
This research addresses precisely that point.
Rather than reinterpreting the same statistical structure, it defines the structural conditions under which outcomes become determined — that is, the structure of observation itself.
I’ll share a more detailed and up-to-date paper beyond the video. I would really appreciate your thoughts on it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403024962
Weren’t you banned, Satoru Watanabe? You made another account to promote your crackpot papers?
@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?
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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.