This is something I've been wondering lately:
Can a question—or observation itself—bring reality into being, rather than just reveal it?
A recent paper I came across explores this idea from a scientific angle. It suggests that "reality" might not be fully real until there's a certain structural correlation between the observer and what is being observed.
That sounds abstract, I know. But in this view, observation isn't just passive—it helps stabilize what we call reality.
I wrote a short essay (in English) summarizing the idea:
👉 https://medium.com/@takamii26_37/do-questions-create-reality-on-observation-reality-and-the-shape-of-consciousness-7a9a425d2f41
Would love to hear what others think. Does this resonate with any philosophical frameworks you know of?
There are three possible models built around what is fundamental (meaning it exists on its own and is not derived from something else) involving matter and consciousness.
matter is fundamental, consciousness arises from complexity of matter (in a brain)
matter and consciousness are both fundamental and exist side by side. Maybe something like a soul that is extra to the material body
only consciousness is fundamental matter in the reality of an observer comes into existance by being experienced.
In the double slit experiment, a beam of light or tiny particles like electrons is fired at a wall that has two very narrow slits next to each other. When only one slit is open, the particles make a single bright band on a screen behind the wall, like throwing sand through one slot. When both slits are open, instead of just two bright bands, a whole pattern of many bright and dark stripes appears, which is what waves make when they overlap and interfere. The strange part is that even if the particles are sent one at a time, they still slowly build up the same stripe pattern, as if each particle behaves like a wave going through both slits at once. But if a detector is used to check which slit each particle goes through, the stripe pattern disappears and the particles act like little bullets, showing that observing them changes the outcome.
Thank you, Nokutebu, for your deep insights.
Your presentation of the three possible models regarding the fundamental nature of matter and consciousness was remarkably clear and thought-provoking.
I’ve been engaging with this very question through the framework of Revelation Philosophy.
What struck me most was your statement:
“In the observer’s reality, what exists through being experienced is only consciousness as the fundamental matter.”
In Revelation Philosophy, matter and consciousness are not seen as independently fundamental, but rather as structures that become real only through intersection—mediated by a question.
In this view, instead of asking which is more fundamental, the focus shifts to this idea:
“Reality can only emerge through intersection.”
From this perspective, the double-slit experiment is deeply symbolic.
“Observation changes the outcome”
is understood in Revelation Philosophy as:
“The question structures reality.”
There’s an experimental paper that resonates strongly with this perspective:
🔬 Experimental Evidence of Nonlocal EEG-Quantum State Correlations https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology
The study suggests a nonlocal correlation between the observer’s subjective state and quantum behavior— and offers a new definition of the role of the ‘observer’, which has long been a central issue in interpreting the double-slit experiment.
I’d love for you to read the paper and exchange thoughts with you.
This is a great summary. Just to add some info the three models nocteb describes (in the same order) are usually called:
You can also be