Philosophy

2327 readers

2 users here now

All about Philosophy.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

SnowC0de@lemmy.ml

Infinite Regress and the Question of Where Observation Really Begins (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by Laura@lemmy.ml to c/philosophy@lemmy.ml

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I’ve been thinking about the infinite regress problem in observational accounts of quantum theory. Treating observation as fact-generating seems to force either an arbitrary stopping point or an infinite hierarchy of observers.

What I’m still reflecting on is whether this regress is best avoided by reinterpreting observation as fundamentally passive, or whether the decisive move lies deeper—at the level of relational structure itself, where stability and coherence arise prior to any observer being singled out.

If so, the absence of regress may not come from where we stop the chain, but from the fact that no chain is required in the first place.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay I didn’t consider the possibility you were using it for translation, my bad. I’m not sure if I really understand what you’re saying though because it sounds really vague and noncommittal in a very AI-specific sort of way. Could you try explaining it without using the chatbot for anything other than translation? Even if its not perfect thats okay, I can always ask you follow up questions to try and understand better 🙂

[–] Laura@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I should clarify something important. The paper I’m drawing from introduces a different definition of “observer,” and it does not equate subjectivity with human consciousness. In that framework, “subjectivity” refers to a structural condition underlying fact formation, not to a mental state.

It also distinguishes between relative and absolute levels of subjectivity, but this is not about minds influencing physics. It’s a claim about the structural preconditions for facts to exist at all.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

I see. Thanks for clarifying that. Could you send me a link to the paper?