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.
Thank you. I feel that we may be talking past each other slightly.
My interest here is not in defending or rejecting any particular philosophical realism, but in discussing the experimental results reported in the paper I linked.
In particular, the paper reports statistically significant temporal correlations between human EEG data and outcomes of remote quantum measurements.
Based on these experimental findings, the paper proposes a new framework in which subjectivity is described as a nonlocal quantum coherence state, and consciousness is understood as emerging through gravitational decoherence of that state.
With this paper in mind, I would very much appreciate hearing your views.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I do not believe “subjectivity” or “consciousness” even exist, so the paper is incoherent to me.
Let me check one thing first. When you say a “truly objective tree,” do you mean a structure that would have the same form even if no one were observing it at all?
If so, what I keep getting stuck on is this: from where is that tree being identified as a tree in the first place?
I’m not trying to smuggle subjectivity back in. I’m just wondering whether, even when we think we’ve fully removed it, some implicit standpoint or framing inevitably remains.