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.
I’m very suspicious about how they converted EEG results to “consciousness states”. They declared that they correspond to brain waves (which is already an extremely strong claim, which they didn’t care to justify), but didn’t explain, how they chose one at every, when humans normally have several brain waves simultaneously. Looks like the weakest place in the setup, even if we assume good faith. And there is also the question, why the participants thinking really hard should affect their quantum computation and not other people, who are much closer.
Yeah, that’s a good point. I was wondering about that too.
From what I understand, it’s not that they’re picking one brain wave out of many. It seems more like they apply the same rule to the EEG data each time and extract a pattern from it.
So it’s less “choosing what looks good,” and more like “running the same process and seeing what comes out.”
Also, it’s not simply that “someone thinking hard” affects the system. Even if there are other people in the same room, the correlation only appears in the EEG of the person who is actually part of the measurement setup.
So it doesn’t seem to be about distance or physical proximity.
That’s why the paper seems to treat it not as a causal influence, but as something related to the structure of observation itself.
The theoretical side of that experiment is discussed in this paper, if you’re interested:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology
Looked at the paper and now I’m completely sure that the author is either a schizo or a fraud. This paper claims to explain relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology and even life and consciousness, does not provide anything to that effect except barely math-flavoured bullshit and it is painfully obvious that the author does not understand relativity or quantum mechanics beyond school-level summaries. I checked the author’s website and it is a weird one-page website that is not reassuring at all that the author is a serious researcher and not a hack.
It’s fair to be skeptical, especially given how broad the claims are.
But if we dismiss everything without engaging with the specific arguments or data, we might miss the actual point.
At least to me, the interesting part is whether the reported correlations and experimental setup can be independently tested.
If those don’t hold up, then the whole framework falls apart — but that’s something that should be examined, not assumed.
I’m not an expert — just a regular office worker in Japan — but you seem very knowledgeable about the theory.
If you don’t mind me asking, what field are you in?
I’m a mathematician, worked a little on research on quantum computing in university before I bailed out and started working as a programmer, had courses on the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in university. These papers make an alarm sound in my head that the author is a crank and not a real researcher, because they are very wordy with little actual content, use mathematically-sounding definitions that are then used nowhere, do not describe actual algorithms used in experiment in the second paper, make extraordinary claims while not giving any concrete explanations on how the author arrived at them and so on. I’ve written reviews on a couple nonsense papers like that, when my thesis advisor assigned them to me, so the general feeling was familiar.
So you’re both a mathematician and a programmer — that makes a lot of sense given how you’re analyzing this.
I really appreciate your detailed feedback. I don’t have that level of technical background, so it’s genuinely helpful.
Since you’ve reviewed papers like this before, I’m curious — what are the main things you look for when deciding that a paper isn’t credible?
I’ve given a basic list of red flags in the previous comment.
I see — things like vague definitions, missing algorithmic detail, and big claims without clear derivation.
That does sound quite technical, and I’m not entirely sure where to even start checking something like that.
If you don’t mind, where would you usually start when evaluating a paper like this?