Section 36 (first articulated 2.04.2021)

The Observer Problem

Alan Watts frames the problem succinctly with the question: “What is behind your eyes?” This question does not merely concern psychology but points toward a deeper ontological issue—namely, the status of the observer itself.

The observer effect raises fundamental questions within quantum mechanics. It has been demonstrated that an observation cannot be made without affecting the phenomenon observed; that is, measurement necessarily alters the system. Yet why this must be so remains philosophically unclear. Heisenberg argued that the observer effect at the quantum level provides a physical articulation of quantum uncertainty.¹ Importantly, the uncertainty principle does not describe a limitation of experimental technology but expresses a fundamental property of quantum systems themselves.²

The observer effect postulates uncertainty because measurement is not limited to the act of a physicist consciously observing an experiment. In quantum mechanics, the observer is any interaction between quantum and classical systems, regardless of the presence of a human subject. Measurement, as empirically defined, depends on the capacity of a physical object to be quantitatively determined. The act of measuring is therefore ingrained in the very composition of physical objects.

In this sense, the change introduced by observation is not a modification of a preexisting, fully determinate system. Rather, it is the act by which the system itself becomes determinate. Observation generates the system as a system. The observer cannot be separated from the phenomenon because the act of conception—the act of determination—is itself what gives the object its quantitative form.

Understood in this way, the observer functions as a generative principle, logically prior to the uncertainty principle. Uncertainty is not introduced by observation; it is revealed through observation as the condition under which determination becomes possible.

These considerations are not merely methodological precautions. They suggest that perception conforms to something implicit within mind—something that actively participates in the constitution of what is perceived. The observer does not passively register reality but participates in its articulation.

If the observer is understood as identical with the phenomenon, then the most coherent explanation is that this identity expresses what the Greeks called life (zōē). For Aristotle, life is defined by energeia—activity in which form and action are inseparable.³ In living activity, what something is cannot be separated from what it does.

Quantum decoherence provides a physical analogue of this insight. Decoherence occurs when a quantum system is not perfectly isolated but interacts with its environment. The coherence time of a quantum state is the duration for which it maintains its quantum character. Crucially, this lifespan is not intrinsic to the system in isolation; it is determined entirely by the events of the situation in which the system participates.⁴ A quantum state endures only insofar as the relational conditions that sustain it endure.

Decoherence therefore expresses a form of non-individuation. A quantum event does not occur as an isolated individual but as the negation of a prior indeterminacy within a field of relations. Every event is the resolution of a previously unresolved condition.

From this perspective, the quantum state is not something that merely exists in an environment. Rather, it is that for which the environment occurs. The environment is not external to the quantum state but constitutive of it. To understand quantum states, we must therefore recognize how fundamental the observer effect is—not as a secondary disturbance of causal processes, but as the very principle by which physical interactions become determinate and intelligible.

Footnotes

1. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1958), esp. chapters on uncertainty and observation.
2. J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics; the uncertainty principle is derived from the non-commutativity of operators, not experimental limitation.
3. Aristotle, Metaphysics Θ and De Anima, where energeia defines life as activity inseparable from form.
4. H. Dieter Zeh, “On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory”; W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical.”

The Light Cone and Decoherence

Below is a conceptual explanation of the light cone, explicitly connected to decoherence, the observer effect, and ontological framing, without reducing it to mere technical relativity jargon.

In relativistic physics, a light cone defines the causal structure of spacetime. From any given event, the light cone separates:

• The past light cone: all events that could have influenced this event
• The future light cone: all events this event could influence
• The elsewhere: events that are spacelike separated and cannot be causally connected without exceeding the speed of light

The light cone therefore defines the limits of physical interaction, not merely of signal transmission, but of causal participation itself.

Light Cones as the Physical Boundary of Observation

When integrated with the observer problem, the light cone marks the maximum horizon within which observation—understood ontologically—can occur.

Decoherence arises precisely when a quantum system becomes entangled with degrees of freedom within its future light cone. Once information about a quantum state spreads outward at or below the speed of light, it becomes irreversibly embedded in the environment.

This means:

• Decoherence is not instantaneous everywhere
• It propagates causally along the light cone
• The “collapse” or loss of coherence is constrained by spacetime structure

Thus, decoherence is local in spacetime, even though quantum correlations may appear nonlocal.

This aligns naturally with a proper understanding of entropy as a localized form of disorder translated between ordered forms, such as observers. Entropy does not signify absolute chaos, but rather the redistribution of order across a wider field of relations. When an ordered system—an observer, a measuring apparatus, or any coherent structure—interacts with its environment, order is not destroyed but displaced. What appears as increasing disorder is the spreading of structured information beyond the bounds within which it can be retained as a unified form.

In this sense, entropy measures the extent to which determination has diffused beyond a localized center of organization. Decoherence is the quantum expression of this process: the coherent relations that once defined a quantum state are distributed into the environment along causal pathways constrained by the light cone. The observer functions as a temporary locus of order, stabilizing relations for a finite duration. As these relations propagate outward, they lose their accessibility to that locus, and entropy increases.

Thus, entropy is not opposed to observation or order but is the medium through which order is translated from one organized system to another. Each act of observation creates local order while simultaneously exporting disorder to the surrounding environment. The arrow of time emerges from this asymmetry: order can be localized, but its dispersal is irreversible. Entropy therefore expresses the cost of determination—the inevitable consequence of transforming uncertainty into form.

Light Cone as the Geometry of Irreversibility

The argument that irreversibility arises from the dispersion of undisclosed relations aligns naturally with the light cone:

• As interactions propagate outward along the light cone,
• Information becomes distributed into an ever-growing region of spacetime,
• Reassembling the original coherent state would require reversing all causal interactions within that cone—which is physically impossible.

Hence, the future light cone is the geometric expression of irreversibility.

Once a quantum system decoheres, the spread of entanglement inside its light cone ensures that:

• The past coherent state cannot be recovered
• The system’s history becomes fixed relative to the observer
• A determinate “event” has occurred

Observer, Event, and Light Cone

In our ontological framework, the observer is not a human subject but a principle of determination. The light cone then functions as the spatiotemporal boundary of that determination.

An event becomes an event only when:

• It is stabilized within a causal region (a light cone), and
• Its relations are fixed relative to other events.

Thus:

• The observer does not collapse a wave function everywhere
• Determination occurs locally, within causal limits
• The “now” of the observer is the intersection of many overlapping light cones

This directly connects to Whitehead’s notion that events are extended but bounded, never instantaneous points.

The idea of the light cone is deeply significant both ontologically and materially, because it sets the limit of matter at the point of light. Light is the condition of perception, a phenomenon necessary for any observer. In this sense, light is not merely something the observer encounters; it is an aspect of the observer itself. Light marks the boundary between what is considered material and what is taken to be rational, abstract, or mental. In reality, these domains coincide. Light is the minimal difference that distinguishes observer and object, while at the same time uniting them.

But why should this be the case? Why is light—rather than any other physical substance—the fundamental boundary of all material things? The answer is already presupposed in the structure of reality itself. Light lies at the base of all organic and material forms. To some degree, all material compositions require light as part of their fundamental constitution, together with secondary attributes that determine the unique totality of each object.

Light is, first, the necessary medium through which an observer can see, conceive, and rationally organize experience—whether in vision, neural activity, or any physical process of cognition. In darkness, one cannot see—not merely metaphorically, but literally. Second, however, the absence of light for an observer does not imply the absence of being. Even when the lights are off, things continue to exist. Objects are what they are independently of whether an observer currently conceives them. This is the objective argument.

Yet even outside the observer’s awareness, the physical composition of objects still requires causation. Reality itself—the composition of all objects—reflects light at the deepest fundamental level. Light appears to occupy the highest conceivable speed in nature. At that limit of speed, there is only light. It precedes all possible conceptions formed within it and exceeds them in both speed and temporal reach. Light is therefore always ahead of any act of conception at any point in time.

The light cone expresses this structure in nature. Light emitted from every object in the observable—whether known or unknown—universe extends beyond the object itself into the future, farther in spacetime than the object from which it originates. In this way, the object projects its own temporal extension into space. The object is not static; it animates a duration that unfolds through every stage of its process. The light cone is thus the physical inscription of an object’s becoming—the manner in which its existence is extended, disclosed, and bounded in time.

The light cone therefore appears, at first, as a small, finite point reflecting outward from itself, extending ever farther as it unfolds through the duration of space and time required for its becoming. It is a contrast between a point and a circle, mediated by a line. In this most basic geometry, the point represents the one, while the circle represents the many—the totality of points. Light exemplifies this structure: it is both particle and wave.

Decoherence as Event Formation Within a Light Cone

From this view, a quantum state is not something that exists first and then decoheres. Rather:

A quantum state becomes an event when decoherence confines it within a light cone. The light cone is an energy state emitted from an observer or an object. Every object emits light, and this emission takes the form of a light cone: it is most dense near the source and becomes increasingly dispersed, spreading outward into a circular expansion.

Before decoherence:

• The state is relational, delocalized, and open-ended

After decoherence:

• The state is embedded in spacetime history
• It becomes part of a causal chain
• It acquires a definite “before” and “after”

The light cone is therefore the form by which becoming takes on temporal order.

Nonlocality Without Causal Violation

Quantum entanglement appears to violate locality, but the light cone clarifies the situation:

• Correlations are nonlocal
• Causal influence is not

Measurement outcomes are only communicable within the light cone. Decoherence ensures that while correlations exist, actual determinate events respect relativistic causality.

Thus, the light cone reconciles:

• Quantum relationality
• Relativistic causality
• Ontological determination

Philosophical Synthesis

• The light cone is the spatial–temporal form of determination
• Decoherence is the mechanism by which uncertainty becomes irreversible
• The observer is the principle by which relations are stabilized
• An event is uncertainty constrained within a causal horizon

Or stated concisely:

Decoherence is the inscription of possibility into spacetime, and the light cone is the geometry that makes this inscription irreversible.

How Materialism Views the Observer

The scientific materialist model of the observer effect is typically described in the following manner.

The observer effect is explained by comparing light as a source of perception at the macroscopic level with the photons of light required to probe microscopic phenomena. There is a physical difference, it is claimed, between light interacting with macroscopic objects and photons interacting with subatomic systems. The light used in ordinary perception does not affect the physical composition of everyday objects because the photons involved are negligible relative to the mass and inertia of macroscopic structures. By contrast, subatomic entities are so minute that the photons required to observe them are comparable in scale and momentum to the systems being measured. As a result, the very photons used to observe microscopic objects disturb them, altering their motion or state. Each attempt to observe such an object displaces it from its prior condition. On this account, the impossibility of precise measurement is explained as a purely physical disturbance caused by the act of measurement itself.

This explanation, however, rests on several ungrounded presumptions.

First, it assumes a fundamental disconnection between the microscopic and macroscopic realms, as though the laws of physics operate in entirely different ways at different scales. This presupposition allows one to claim that, at the microscopic level, photons physically alter atomic structures, whereas at the macroscopic level light does not meaningfully affect objects. Yet this comparison is misleading. Photons at all scales are manifestations of the same physical phenomenon—light—and perception, whether enhanced by instruments or unaided, remains the same faculty of sensation. The difference is one of scale, not of principle.

If, at the microscopic level, perception—directly or indirectly—has the power to alter elementary composition, then one must ask what corresponding power of conception operates at the macroscopic level. Our hypothesis is that thought functions as the power that brings determinacy to objects that sensation alone apprehends indeterminately. The error that strict materialism seeks to avoid—the claim that objects only exist when perceived—is replaced by an equally problematic reduction: mind is treated as nothing more than a passive receptor of physical stimuli.

In this reduction, objects are denied the capacity for self-existence unless externally perceived, while mind is denied any active role in determination. Things are not granted the power to be what they are independently, nor is mind granted the power to participate in the constitution of meaning. Self-conception, if it occurs at all, can only occur indirectly—through relation, through otherness.

The apparent disjunction between conception as integral to the physical composition of objects and conception as independent of physical composition should not undermine the essential principle of reason: that unknown effects in the universe are not irrational. The assumption that unexplained phenomena are nevertheless rationally explicable already presupposes a conceiving element behind rational order. Perhaps the most obscure effect of reason is consciousness itself. Consciousness appears oriented toward revealing the unknown, yet it is difficult—within a purely materialist framework—to explain how consciousness could actively posit something as unknown in the first place.

Ironically, the very mental capacities employed to construct this mechanical account of observation are themselves treated as purely receptive, as having no active role in the processes they describe. Yet any disturbance in observation—even one attributed to factors independent of observation—is first discovered through observation. The observer cannot be eliminated from the account without covertly presupposing the very capacities whose efficacy is being denied.

Footnotes

1. This account reflects the standard materialist explanation found in discussions of measurement disturbance in early quantum mechanics; see Niels Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge.
2. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, where measurement disturbance is initially framed in terms of interaction but later distinguished from uncertainty as a structural feature of quantum theory.
3. The reduction of perception to passive reception is characteristic of empiricist materialism; see critiques in Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Aesthetic and Analytic.
4. For contemporary discussions distinguishing disturbance from decoherence and entanglement, see W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical.”

why would it trick itself, to make room for knowledge.

Motion, Causality, and the Observer Effect

In physics, the term “effect” means to cause motion. The concept of motion is not limited to locomotion or spatio-temporal extension characterized by Newton’s second law of motion, which states that the acceleration of an object depends on the net force acting on its mass. This formulation of motion describes the effects of objects in physical contact with each other, mediated through force or gravity. There are knowable effects that can be measured when change occurs; for example, momentum is the motion derived when one object utilizes the motion of another to gain acceleration, i.e., the impetus gained by a moving object.

Einstein’s special theory of relativity broadens the concept of motion by establishing the speed of light as a universal standard. Light bridges motion and matter: motion is no longer merely an abstract feature of all physical objects; instead, the definition of what it means to be physical is grounded in the bare minimum substrate known as light. Light is the substrate of motion, and motion is the form of light.[^1][^2] (Add further explanation of light here.)

Any causal effect is limited by the speed of light and cannot propagate backward in time, reflecting a principle of irreversibility. Motion as physical causality entails two conditions:
A) A cause cannot produce an effect outside its light cone.
B) Within the light cone, events are irreversible.

The first condition implies that an activity cannot act beyond its material form without that matter accompanying the activity. The second condition asserts that matter always conforms to the change initiated by an activity; anything contrary is part of the change itself.[^3] (Add law of irreversibility here.)

However, what about motions that produce no directly measurable properties, as suggested by the observer effect? Classical Newtonian mechanics assumes motion always produces measurable effects—momentum, force, and displacement. For example, a bowling ball knocks over pins, changing their position. Yet, Newtonian motion does not explain transformations of motion where one quality changes into another, such as when heat at a certain temperature causes chemical transformations in molecules. Einstein’s concept of motion accounts for some of these changes, but only partially, as in the case of Brownian motion, where microscopic particle motion results from thermal energy and collisions in a fluid, producing stochastic but indirectly measurable effects.[^4]

The observer effect further complicates this picture by demonstrating that motion can produce non-measurable effects. Even in a purely materialist account, photons interacting with atoms can alter them in ways imperceptible to the observer. This indicates that motion can generate unknown effects that still follow a form of causality. Such phenomena challenge Newton’s third law, which states: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”[^5] Newton’s formulation assumes that motion is a direct physical interaction between objects and leaves no room for effects mediated by conception, because these are not perceptible. At the subatomic level, not every action produces an equal reaction; measurement-induced changes may generate unknown or unequal effects, revealing that motion and causality include more than just observable interaction.

The hypothesis of unknown or unmeasurable effects can be characterized by the principle of nothing, whose being is to be something unknown. This principle involves:
A) The inductive observation that conception itself constitutes a form of motion—albeit unconventional—that can remove phenomena from measurement, causing unknown effects.
B) The deductive observation that conception uncovers unknown principles in every knowable effect.

This raises a key question: does the observer merely discover unknown effects, or does the act of conception itself cause them? Is the unknown principle an inherent part of the universe that the observer encounters, or does it arise from the mental capacities used to make the conception, which inherently leave room for unknown factors?[^[6]]

Footnotes

[^1]: Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Ch. 7; light as the limiting speed and medium for causality.

[^2]: Feynman, R. P., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1, Chapter 4; light as a carrier of energy and information.

[^3]: Prigogine, I., From Being to Becoming, on irreversibility and the arrow of time.

[^4]: Einstein, A., Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement, Annalen der Physik, 1905.

[^5]: Newton, I., Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book I, Laws of Motion.

[^6]: Heisenberg, W., Physics and Philosophy, 1958; observer effect as a structural feature of quantum systems rather than a mere measurement artifact.

This unknown principle is not merely any particular fact that is not yet known, but the very uncertainty that drives the search for truth. Whether known effects give rise to the unknown principle, or the unknown principle generates known effects, the relationships among known facts are unified by their common underlying principle: the unknown cause.

The adage “the act of measurement affects the measurement” can be further understood through the interaction between the observer and the observed. During perception, photons are received by the eye, but the eye also emits photons; there exists an electromagnetic spectrum mediating the interaction between observer and object. This radiation can be understood as a spectrum of conception—the reach of the observer’s conceptualization toward the object. In other words, the observer does not simply register the particle; they look beyond it, into the unknown, extending the capacity for observation itself. This intermediary process can be interpreted as a transition toward another dimension of comprehension.

The observer effect thus abstracts the capacity for transitioning between dimensions. When we think of changing dimension, we often assume this involves alterations of physical properties. However, changes in physical properties—size, mass, velocity—are ultimately differences of abstract mathematical relations. In mathematics, we readily accept that the mind has the power to manipulate such principles; yet, in empirical experience, the mind is traditionally excluded from directly altering the dimensions of nature, even though mental processes guide every analysis, calculation, and interpretation of both subatomic and macroscopic phenomena.

Technological extensions of the senses, such as microscopes or telescopes, are usually described as enhancing perception of smaller or larger objects at vast or minute distances. Sensation itself is purely receptive, analytical, and cannot alter the actual phenomenon. For perception to confront genuinely new information, the underlying physical dimension must be changed, which is accomplished by altering measurable quantities—size, distance, or scale—via the instrument. In this sense, the telescope or microscope, as an extension of reason, changes the dimension of nature, and consciousness changes simultaneously with the change in dimension.

We often mistakenly assume that the identity of the observer—the totality of their personal identity—must remain intact for dimensional transition to occur. In reality, the continuity between dimensions is a function of the power of conception, not of individual identity. Any observer, regardless of personal characteristics, can access the same microscopic or macroscopic phenomena, though understanding and interpretation may vary. The presence of a scientist does not uniquely confer access; the phenomena remain universally observable.

“The act of measurement affects the measurement” therefore interprets an unknown effect derived from a natural phenomenon as if it were caused solely by the observational method. Yet observation itself, as an aspect of general conception, is a natural component of the phenomena, inseparable from its occurrence. This can be further clarified by connecting to the concept of the light cone: the light cone sets the boundary of causal influence and perception in spacetime. The interaction of observer and object occurs within this causal structure; the unknown effects of observation are confined to the light cone, which mediates both the transmission of information and the temporal unfolding of events. The light cone, in this sense, is not merely a physical constraint—it is the spatial-temporal framework in which the observer’s conception, measurement, and the resulting transition across dimensions are realized.

The Observer Effect and the Continuity of Mind and Matter

The effect of the observer on a phenomenon constitutes a twofold relation: the observer both causes unknown effects and receives the effect as an unknown cause.

Modern science begins from what empirical observations suggest: an inflow of information. The observer distorts this flow, causing a perceived loss of information from a system. Yet this so-called loss or distortion is, in fact, the mechanism by which information is organized and structured. Empirical observation is classically incomplete, as demonstrated by wave-particle duality. The observer acts as a “restart apparatus” for the system: decoherence represents the disorganization of facts, allowing further derivation of information. The observer is both the giver and receiver of information, occupying the extremes of the relational structure. When the observer reflects upon itself, it conceives a position independent from the content of the phenomena; in this sense, the observer isolates the events to which things occur. Empirical methods confirm that the observer functions as an apparatus for setting up hypotheses and then confirming facts—a feedback loop akin to a self-exciting circuit.

This aligns closely with Whitehead’s description of measurement, where the act of measurement discloses its object: the conception itself becomes the limit of what can be disclosed. [^1]

At the subatomic level, if a photon affects an atom, the minimal interaction is that a photon affects a photon. In other words, the photon serves as a transmitter without inherent content. The question arises: what provides the content such that the photon can effect change?

In materialistic accounts, the observer effect is often attributed to photons physically altering atoms. However, photons are quanta of electromagnetic radiation, massless force carriers. How can a massless particle displace an atom, like one ball hitting another? Even though photons are massless, they possess momentum, and light reflecting off a surface can exert force. The momentum of photons can even exceed that of neutrinos, which are neutral, nearly massless particles representing the stability of electron motion. [^2]

Reducing the observer effect to mere photon-electron interaction oversimplifies the relationship. The photon and electron are continuous aspects of the same energy, and their apparent separation is an abstraction. Treating consciousness as unrelated to physical change represents the classical mind-body dualism, which fails to synthesize the unity of mind and matter. [^3]

The distinction often drawn between macroscopic and microscopic realms—arguing that physical laws differ entirely—may obscure their continuity. This apparent difference could, in fact, constitute the continuity between scales. For example, the structure of the universe and the neuronal structure of the brain may reflect the same underlying relational principles.

Quantity and quality provide further insight. The heaviest object in the universe is a supermassive black hole, associated with the unknown principle (nothing), whereas the lightest is the photon, associated with being. Quantity is a feature of nothing, while quality is a feature of something. Any quality, existing in relation to nothing, is associated with quantity: objects acquire their relational measure through their interaction with the void. This explains why the momentum of a photon, relative to nothing, gives it effective mass, characterized in terms of neutrinos.

Finally, the bending of light by gravity illustrates the interplay between substance and medium: photons are influenced not by mass but by the curvature of space-time. Gravity bends space-time itself, and light follows that curvature, appearing deflected. [^4]

Footnotes

[^1]: Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality, Harper & Row, 1978. Measurement discloses the object by limiting the conceptual field.

[^2]: Griffiths, David J. Introduction to Elementary Particles, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2008. Photons as massless momentum carriers; neutrinos as nearly massless particles.

[^3]: Chalmers, David J. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, Oxford University Press, 1996. Discussion on mind-matter continuity and dualism.

[^4]: Einstein, Albert. Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1920. Light follows the curvature of space-time; gravitational lensing occurs without photon mass.

Consciousness and the Observer: Coherency vs. Decoherence

The notion that “consciousness causes collapse” is often associated with interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation. However, the mere invocation of the observer does not fully explain determination. By presenting the observer as passive, orthodox descriptions imply that freedom within a system is subordinate to its occurrences. This is partially true: the passive aspect of the observer provides the ground for decision, choice, and selection—what we might call determination. But determination of what?

The idea that the observer is passive presupposes that the contents of determinations are absolute and pre-existing—the forms themselves. Observation, then, is better understood as an intermediary function of the mind. If there is continuity between mind and object, the relationship behaves like a wave-like spectrum or tunnel through which information is transmitted. The intermediation of this relation manifests as experience, which is the temporal duration of some underlying principle acting as the form or extreme of intermediation. What we perceive—through vision, hearing, or any other faculty—is the experience of something undifferentiated and unified as a single form: mind. In this framework, the object is the intermediation of mind with itself.

The observer can be understood in two ways. First, as an organ or faculty of observation, it functions as an object whose rational conception disturbs information by limiting it to a particular kind. Second, as consciousness itself—the form of reason—the observer embodies the act of conception, and the object becomes the experience of the form of consciousness. The first emphasizes physical or functional interaction, the second emphasizes the generative role of consciousness in structuring reality.

It is crucial to clarify that the observer is not any person. The observer is any system—or any aspect of a system—that mediates information, generates experience, or participates in the determination of phenomena. This removes anthropocentric bias while preserving the essential conceptual role of observation.

Science itself can be seen as a system of observers. As a method of observation and deduction, science constitutes an extension of consciousness. Existence itself can be interpreted as a scientific system, not in the sense of a human cultural artifact, but as the operational structure of reality. What humans produce as knowledge is not merely a cultural product; rather, the discovery of reality reveals structures that pre-exist the observer. What is discovered is identical with what exists; our acts of observation reveal, rather than create, the form of reality.

In this sense, consciousness as a generative principle is inseparable from the scientific endeavor: to observe, to measure, and to conceptualize is to participate in the ongoing structuring of reality, where the observer, far from being passive, is an active medium of determination.

last updated 12.21.2025