I would like to introduce the theory of SIEP (Subjective Intersection and Emergence Process) and experiments on nonlocal correlations with quantum processors. — LessWrong
This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
I am not the researcher behind the theory introduced here. This post originated from my encounter with a paper by Satoru Watanabe, an independent Japanese researcher, and my thought that “the content is so interesting I want to introduce it to LessWrong.”
As some parts require specialized discussion, if you feel it warrants discussion, I would greatly appreciate your feedback.
1. What is the theory: SIEP (Subjectivity Intersection and Emergence Process)
At the core of Watanabe's theory lies: • Absolute Subjectivity (a “light-like” coherence without time or space) • Relative Subjectivity (a general relativistic observer) • A third subjectivity called **O3 (Hazama)**, born from the intersection of subjectivities
To put it somewhat crudely,
reality is not something that exists merely because an observer is present. It is generated by the intersection (SI) of the Absolute and the Relative, and it is at the moment this intersection achieves “coherence” (SIC) that the observed reality itself becomes fixed.
This explanation leads to the claim that it can account for the quantum measurement problem, the constancy of the speed of light, and the fact that light has zero proper time—all within a single framework.
2. Why I Want to Introduce This to LessWrong
The reason is simple:
This research is notable because it involves experimental results, making it more than just a philosophical claim.
What particularly caught my attention was the experiment showing non-local correlations between human EEG signals and quantum processor shot sequences.
Conducted across a distance of approximately 8,000 km, participants were unaware of matching tables or quantum shot sequences, with no physical or informational connection.
Yet, reproducible positive and negative correlations were observed across over 50 participants.
While I lack the expertise to evaluate this experiment itself, I wish to discuss “how we should interpret these results.”
3. Core Thesis of the Paper (Very Brief Summary)
• Modern physics retains a double standard in its “treatment of observers” (General relativity observers are passive, quantum theory observers are active) • SIEP redefines the observing entity as a triple structure • Correlation consists of separate layers: “intentional matching (experimenter)” and “subjective fluctuation (subject)” Their integration cannot be explained by existing theories • At the limit of subjective intersection, the interaction itself autonomously emerges as a “third subjectivity (O3)”
How experiments are evaluated depends on the community, but I am posting this because I believe it “has the potential to become a topic for discussion.”
5. Purpose: To spark discussion, critique, and improvement
I am not an advocate of this theory. My position is simply: “This seems interesting, so I want to discuss it.” “I want to hear how others interpret these experimental results.”
I understand that topics like this should be handled with care on LessWrong. Precisely for that reason, I want to engage in discussion as sincerely as possible, based on primary sources.
I am not the researcher behind the theory introduced here.
This post originated from my encounter with a paper by Satoru Watanabe, an independent Japanese researcher,
and my thought that “the content is so interesting I want to introduce it to LessWrong.”
As some parts require specialized discussion, if you feel it warrants discussion,
I would greatly appreciate your feedback.
1. What is the theory: SIEP (Subjectivity Intersection and Emergence Process)
At the core of Watanabe's theory lies:
• Absolute Subjectivity (a “light-like” coherence without time or space)
• Relative Subjectivity (a general relativistic observer)
• A third subjectivity called **O3 (Hazama)**, born from the intersection of subjectivities
To put it somewhat crudely,
reality is not something that exists merely because an observer is present.
It is generated by the intersection (SI) of the Absolute and the Relative,
and it is at the moment this intersection achieves “coherence” (SIC)
that the observed reality itself becomes fixed.
This explanation leads to the claim that it can account for the quantum measurement problem, the constancy of the speed of light, and the fact that light has zero proper time—all within a single framework.
2. Why I Want to Introduce This to LessWrong
The reason is simple:
This research is notable because it involves experimental results,
making it more than just a philosophical claim.
What particularly caught my attention
was the experiment showing non-local correlations
between human EEG signals and quantum processor shot sequences.
Conducted across a distance of approximately 8,000 km,
participants were unaware of matching tables or quantum shot sequences,
with no physical or informational connection.
Yet, reproducible positive and negative correlations
were observed across over 50 participants.
While I lack the expertise to evaluate this experiment itself,
I wish to discuss “how we should interpret these results.”
3. Core Thesis of the Paper (Very Brief Summary)
• Modern physics retains a double standard in its “treatment of observers”
(General relativity observers are passive, quantum theory observers are active)
• SIEP redefines the observing entity as a triple structure
• Correlation consists of separate layers: “intentional matching (experimenter)” and “subjective fluctuation (subject)”
Their integration cannot be explained by existing theories
• At the limit of subjective intersection, the interaction itself autonomously emerges as a “third subjectivity (O3)”
How experiments are evaluated depends on the community,
but I am posting this because I believe it “has the potential to become a topic for discussion.”
4. Paper Link
The original text is here (PDF):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology
5. Purpose: To spark discussion, critique, and improvement
I am not an advocate of this theory.
My position is simply:
“This seems interesting, so I want to discuss it.”
“I want to hear how others interpret these experimental results.”
I understand that topics like this should be handled with care on LessWrong.
Precisely for that reason, I want to engage in discussion as sincerely as possible, based on primary sources.