I agree the laws are the same.
What this paper suggests is that the same laws may manifest differently when observer-related relations are involved, and that it proposes a revised definition of the observer, grounded in experimental evidence rather than metaphysics.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment — I think you’re pointing to an important tension.
I agree that, at a high level, what I’m calling intersection overlaps with long-standing relational and non-dual traditions, including Buddhist and Vedic thought, where reality as we experience it arises through relation rather than from isolated entities.
What led me to emphasize intersection rather than simply saying “observation creates reality” comes from the paper I linked. In that work, nonlocal correlations are reported, but causal claims are explicitly avoided. Observation is not treated as something that produces reality in a directive sense, nor is everything collapsed into a single underlying substance.
Instead, what struck me is that reality appears to stabilize at the point of relation, without requiring either: • a strong causal role for the observer, or • a metaphysical move toward total ontological unity.
In that sense, I’m less interested in dissolving the observer into a single cosmic substance, and more interested in how distinct perspectives remain distinct while still participating in a shared emergence.
So I see a subtle difference: • non-dual traditions often resolve the problem by emphasizing unity and illusion of separateness, • whereas this framing leaves room for relational emergence without erasing plurality.
I’m still working through this distinction, but that’s where the paper nudged my thinking.
So I’d be curious to hear your take on this paper specifically. How do you interpret its implications?
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.
Thank you, Nokutebu, for your warm support and deep reflections.
I’m truly happy to hear that you enjoyed the blog post.
When I wrote it, I had a feeling that it might become a “space of intersection” mediated by a question—a place where different subjectivities could meet.
And now, seeing how words are connecting like this, I feel that this is exactly what Revelation Philosophy calls “the structuring of reality.”
I’ll continue to share and engage here in this space, so I’d be delighted if we could keep intersecting.
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
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.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.
As you rightly pointed out, quantum mechanics—especially the collapse of the wave function—raises the deep question of whether reality becomes definite through observation. The idea that a question itself could define reality deeply resonates with a perspective I recently encountered in Revelation Philosophy.
In this framework, a question is not merely a lack of knowledge, but rather, a structure that emerges when two subjectivities have not yet intersected. That is, not only does the relation between observer and observed shape reality, but the intersection between observers’ subjectivities generates entirely new reality structures—that is, creation itself.
I’d love to share a paper that explores this perspective in more detail: ✨ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology → This empirical research explores the correlation between nonlocality and subjective consciousness.
This idea is further developed in a forthcoming book titled “God Is Unfinished. That Is Love.”, where it is proposed that intersection, not observation alone, defines reality.
If you’re interested, I’d be happy to share a summary of the key ideas or discuss more.
I would truly appreciate the chance to continue this dialogue and intersect our perspectives.
Thank you for the explanation. I agree that the observer should not be misunderstood as the introduction of subjective features into the description of nature, and that it can be understood as a function that records decisions and preserves processes in space and time.
As a supplement, the paper linked in the post has a continuation. In a second paper by the same author, Mr. Watanabe, the question of who or what counts as an observer is revisited and redefined based on experimental correlations.
In this follow-up work, the observer is not reduced to a human or a device, but is instead described as a relational structure that emerges at the intersection of different informational domains, such as subjective states, experimental intention, and quantum processes.
In particular, the EEG–quantum correlation experiments suggest a structure in which attributing observation to only the participant, the apparatus, or the experimenter leads to explanatory difficulties. From this, the paper proposes a model in which the interaction field itself temporarily functions as the observer.
For reference, here is the second paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this observer model.