this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
2 points (100.0% liked)

Philosophy

2327 readers
11 users here now

All about Philosophy.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] Laura@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week 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 1 week ago

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