Modern science achieved objectivity by removing subjectivity from theory.

Observers were treated as coordinate systems, and physical reality was assumed to exist independently of them.

This worked well for classical physics.

But quantum mechanics introduced a strange situation: measurement determines physical outcomes, yet the observing subject itself is never defined within the theory.

The observer is necessary, but structurally absent.

This raises a deeper question.

Modern knowledge is built on the subject–object distinction. But if the observing subject is excluded from theory, can a theory of observation actually be complete?

Maybe the “observer problem” in physics is not just a technical issue, but a structural consequence of removing subjectivity from the foundations of knowledge.

  • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    I don’t believe God exists, “there is just atoms and the void.” I also don’t think they can be reconciled because relativity is just wrong. Bell’s theorem proved that relativity is incompatible with objective reality, but people have such a strong devotion to it that many physicists have descended into crackpot woo territory claiming that we should deny objective relativity even exists in order to preserve relativity. “Reality doesn’t exist, but thank God it’s local!” That is legitimately a popular mindset among academics in physics and it’s entirely deranged. If you (1) accept objective independently of the observer reality exists, and (2) the predictions of quantum mechanics are correct, then it is trivial to write down a two-qubit experiment, one far simpler than Bell’s original theorem which proves that the states of the qubits cannot be Lorentz invariant. This conclusion is “escaped” in the academic literature by denying reality, denying premise #1, which, in my opinion, is an absurdity.

    • Laura@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      1·
      26 days ago

      I’ve been taking the time to look into the points you’ve been raising, since they’re quite technical, and I feel like I’m starting to understand the structure of your position more clearly.

      It seems that your view is that quantum mechanics is correct, and that objective reality exists independently of observation.

      In that case, as a consequence of Bell’s theorem, you are effectively rejecting locality and accepting a form of non-local realism — is that a fair understanding of your position?

      With that in mind, I’d like to ask one question:

      If objective reality is fundamental, what, in your framework, grounds or guarantees its existence?

      Also, just one more point — you mentioned that you do not believe God exists. Would you describe your position as atheistic? If you don’t mind sharing, I’d also be interested in what led you to that view.