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
I think the video is pretty much garbage. “The correlation is 0.9”… Yeah, the correlation of WHAT? I’m pretty sure my brain is affected in exactly the same way by gravity as a quantum computer is a thousand miles away. It’s subject to the same physics and quantum mechanics. The laws of physics are the same all across the universe. If I measure something which is subject to that, I could even get a correlation close to 1.0!
What I’m trying to say is: A brain and a quantum computer being part of the same universe isn’t a mystery. The interesting question has to be deeper than what the video leads to believe. And then what’s even with the geometric objects of manifolds of a brain EEG? And why is it important how it relates to another concept? The video doesn’t explain any of that.
I mean we know about things like observer effect. And about quantum nonlocality. That being part of “the fabric of the universe” is a subject of science since Einstein’s time?! It’s not a “revolutionary” new idea. The video is phrased in a very sensational way. But it doesn’t really say a lot.
And what’s even with the second observer? The video entirely omits explaining the obvious connection via the observer.
So what’s in the video more or less just reminds me of the “spurious relationship” effect. How we have higher drowning rates if ice-cream sales in the city are high. Or when a sports team predicted the presidential election results for decades. Sure. Once you do the methodology right, you can do some science on it. That’s how science works. And maybe they’re linked in a way. Maybe they’re not. The video surely doesn’t tell any of that.
@[email protected]
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.
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.
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.