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.
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.
I see. Thanks for clarifying that. Could you send me a link to the paper?
The author is Satoru Watanabe. Six related papers are available on ResearchGate.
Here is the overview paper (abstract): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399959169_Detection_of_the_Generated_Observer_Subjectivity_O3_under_Five_Energy_Star_Structural_Resonance
The first paper focuses on quantum-computer-based experiments, but the second paper develops the theoretical foundation more explicitly: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398259486_Empirical_Subjectivity_Intersection_Observer-Quantum_Coherence_Beyond_Existing_Theories_Unifying_Relativity_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Cosmology
If you’re interested in the theoretical framework I mentioned, the second paper lays it out more directly.