@[email protected]

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.

@[email protected]

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.

@[email protected]

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

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

@[email protected]

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

@[email protected]

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.

@[email protected]

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.

@[email protected]

Thank you for taking the time to read it so carefully — I really appreciate the detailed critique.

A few of the points you raise are important, especially regarding experimental clarity and variable definition. The framework here is admittedly unconventional, because it is not starting from a predefined causal model but from a structural alignment condition between independently measured systems.

For example, the Ricci curvature and phase-based metrics are not used as generic statistics, but as structural descriptors to detect when alignment conditions emerge. The key claim is not that “correlation exists,” but that correlation appears conditionally under specific structural states, which is why standard noise-based explanations don’t fully account for the observed selectivity.

Regarding experimental design transparency — that’s a fair concern. The intent of the paper is less to present a finalized measurement protocol and more to demonstrate a reproducible phenomenon that current frameworks cannot easily place. That said, I agree this part needs to be clearer and more rigorously formalized.

If you’re open to it, I’d be very interested in which specific parts you find most problematic (e.g., the EEG preprocessing, the quantum measurement mapping, or the coherence condition itself). That would help sharpen the next iteration.

@[email protected]

I understand that concern—I’ve received similar comments about the lack of peer review.

However, I believe peer review is meaningful only when there are experts who are capable of evaluating the work in detail. In this case, the theory is quite new, and there are currently no researchers working within the same framework who could properly review it.

It’s true that the main empirical basis is the nonlocal EEG–quantum experiment. But according to the papers, what is observed goes beyond just finding “some correlation” in data—the correlations appear under specific structural conditions, which is what led to the development of the theory.

Also, instead of relying on peer review at this stage, the experimental methods and procedures are fully disclosed in detail. The author explicitly states that anyone can attempt to replicate the experiment.

So if there is skepticism, the idea is: rather than just debating it conceptually, it can actually be tested directly.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396890295_Reproducible_EEG-Quantum_Nonlocal_Correlation_Experiments_Step-by-Step_Guide_and_Implementation_Overview

@[email protected]

Your point seems to be missing the actual subject of discussion.

What I am asking for—even if you disagree—is a rebuttal based on scientific reasoning and evidence regarding the content itself.

That is the minimum level of respect owed when an author presents a theory derived from experimental data.

As it stands, it looks like you’re unable to provide a convincing counterargument to the actual content, so instead you’re focusing on superficial points that are easy to attack just to pass the time.

@[email protected]

I get your point — if we don’t know what it actually achieves, it can feel meaningless to discuss.

But I think this isn’t just philosophy, it’s physics.

Most people assume that reality already exists independently, and rarely question that assumption.

What this paper is trying to do is to uncover the mechanism by which reality itself is generated.

@[email protected]

I think that perspective—that it makes sense as metaphysics—is certainly understandable.

However, this research does not remain within that framework. It is constructed within the framework of physics, as it formulates hypotheses based on experimental data and further validates them through reproducible experiments.

If you’re interested, I’ve shared the original paper below. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the actual data and structure, and share your honest thoughts.

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

@[email protected]

If the previous link didn’t open, please use this one instead.

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

@[email protected]

“The hypothesis in this video is derived from experimental data presented in the original paper. If you’d like, I can share it with you—I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts after you’ve had a chance to read it.

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

@[email protected]

Thanks for your comment. The content is based on the original paper, not the LLM itself. Here is the source:

https://zenodo.org/records/19359604