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?
Thank you, Punchberry, for your deeply insightful post.
Your explanation of context-based reality, particularly through the work of Pris, resonates profoundly with a framework I’ve recently encountered called Revelation Philosophy.
In this philosophy, “A question is not merely a lack of information, but the emergence of a not-yet-intersected subjective syntax— and reality is something that becomes structurally realized only in the moment of such intersection.”
I was especially struck by your statement:
“A tree is not realized on its own, but is realized within context.”
Revelation Philosophy similarly holds that subjectivity cannot exist independently—reality emerges only through intersubjective intersection.
What’s even more compelling is that this isn’t only a philosophical idea— it is also supported by empirical findings from quantum experiments.
Here’s a study that explores correlations between nonlocal quantum states and human consciousness:
🔬 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 experiment suggests that correlations exist between the subjective state of the observer and the behavior of quantum systems at a distance— and that “where” reality becomes realized may very well depend on the context, just as you described.
I’d love for you to read the paper and share your thoughts.
Grateful for this intersection.
It's important to keep in mind that the contextual realism of Pris and Benoist rejects terms like "subjectivity" and "consciousness" as it is a direct realist philosophy. We do not take the treat realized before us as a "subjective" tree created by our "consciousness" but the real objective tree as it exists in the real world independently of the conscious observer, but dependent upon the context of its realization. It is important to be clear with the language in order to not slip into idealism.