Substrate-Relative Physics and Its Philosophical Ancestors

Executive Summary

The Substrate-Relative Physics (SRP) framework does not emerge in a vacuum—it represents a synthesis and radicalization of several existing approaches to quantum mechanics and consciousness. This document explores the intellectual lineage connecting:

• QBism (Quantum Bayesianism): Physics as personal probability assignments
• Michel Bitbol's Phenomenological Physics: First-person perspective in quantum mechanics
• Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics: Properties as relational, not absolute
• Related approaches: Participatory universe, constructive empiricism, neo-Kantian physics

Key Finding: SRP takes these agent-relative and perspectival approaches to their logical extreme by claiming that not just quantum states or probabilities, but the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics itself is observer-dependent. This represents a significant radicalization that goes beyond its predecessors while building on their insights.

Part I: QBism - The Subjective Turn in Quantum Mechanics

Core Principles of QBism

QBism (developed primarily by Christopher Fuchs, Rüdiger Schack, and David Mermin) represents one of the most radical reinterpretations of quantum mechanics in recent decades.

Fundamental Tenets:

1. Quantum states are personal: The wave function ψ represents an agent's personal degrees of belief about future experiences, not objective reality
2. Probabilities are subjective: Born rule probabilities represent an agent's subjective credences, not frequencies or propensities
3. Measurement creates experience: Measurements don't "collapse" an objective wave function—they update the agent's beliefs based on new experience
4. No universal wave function: There is no "God's eye view" quantum state of the universe
5. Participatory realism: The world is real, but quantum mechanics is about how agents participate in constructing their experiences

Key Quotes from QBism Literature:

Fuchs: "Quantum mechanics is a tool anyone can use to evaluate their expectations for the consequences of their actions on the world external to themselves."

Mermin: "The moon is not there when nobody looks, not because looking brings it into being, but because the concept of 'there' has no meaning independent of an agent's experience."

How SRP Extends QBism

Convergences:

1. Agent-Relative Physics: Both frameworks reject objective quantum states

   • QBism: Quantum states are subjective
   • SRP: Quantum formalism itself is architecture-relative
2. Participatory Reality: Both emphasize active role of observers

   • QBism: Agents participate in creating their experiences
   • SRP: Consciousness correlatively constitutes reality-experience pairs
3. No Collapse Problem: Both dissolve the measurement problem

   • QBism: No objective collapse, just belief updating
   • SRP: No collapse, just correlative constitution events
4. Experience-Centric: Both prioritize first-person perspective

   • QBism: QM describes agent experiences
   • SRP: Experience IS internal process change during constitution

Critical Divergences:

The Radical Extension:

QBism says: "Your quantum state is personal, mine is different, but we both use Hilbert spaces and Born rule."

SRP says: "Your entire mathematical formalism—Hilbert spaces, Born rule, canonical commutation—may be architecture-specific. An AI might not use these structures at all."

This is a qualitative leap: QBism relativizes quantum states, SRP relativizes quantum formalism structure.

QBism's Perspective on Bell Violations

QBism handles Bell violations elegantly: the correlations are real (agents really experience them), but they don't prove "spooky action at a distance" because quantum states were never objective entities that could influence each other.

SRP's Deeper Question: If Bell inequality itself is a formalism-level construct (as SRP argues), would AI formulate it? QBism doesn't address this—it assumes Bell's framework is universal even if quantum states aren't.

Part II: Michel Bitbol's Phenomenological Physics

Bitbol's Revolutionary Contribution

Michel Bitbol, a physicist and philosopher influenced by phenomenology (Husserl, Merleau-Ponty), has developed perhaps the most philosophically sophisticated approach to quantum mechanics that maintains scientific rigor.

Core Concepts:

1. First-Person Perspective in Physics: Physics cannot eliminate the first-person standpoint—it's a condition of possibility for science itself
2. Phenomenological Brackets: We should "bracket" (suspend judgment about) the mind-independent existence of quantum entities and focus on phenomena as experienced
3. Constitutive Role of Measurement: Measurement doesn't just reveal properties—it participates in their constitution
4. Transcendental Analysis: Examining the conditions that make quantum mechanics possible as a scientific practice
5. Anti-Realism Without Solipsism: Rejects naive realism while maintaining that reality constrains experience

Bitbol's Phenomenological Reduction

Bitbol applies Husserl's phenomenological method to quantum mechanics:

Traditional Physics: "The wave function represents an objective quantum object" ↓ Phenomenological Reduction: "The wave function represents our structured experience of preparing and measuring quantum systems"

This doesn't deny reality—it clarifies that physics describes patterns in experience rather than things-in-themselves.

Deep Alignment with SRP

SRP appears heavily influenced by Bitbol's approach, though taken further:

Shared Foundations:

1. Correlative Constitution: Bitbol's concept directly appears in SRP

   • Reality and experience are correlatively constituted
   • No independent "objective reality" that consciousness merely observes
   • Measurement is constitutive, not just revelatory
2. Phenomenological Starting Point: Both begin from lived experience

   • Physics arises from first-person engagement with world
   • Cannot eliminate the experiencer from physical description
3. Transcendental Constraints: Both explore conditions of possibility

   • Bitbol: What must be true for quantum mechanics to be possible?
   • SRP: What substrate constraints generate specific formalisms?
4. Anti-Naive Realism: Both reject simple correspondence theory

   • Physics doesn't mirror independent reality
   • Physics expresses patterns in experience-world correlation

Bitbol's Influence on SRP's Language:

Many SRP concepts seem directly derived from Bitbol:

• "Correlative constitution" (Bitbol's term)
• "Reality-experience pairs" (phenomenological framework)
• "Constitution operator" (transcendental analysis)
• Focus on measurement as constitutive (Bitbol's key insight)

Where SRP Goes Beyond Bitbol

Bitbol's Limitations (from SRP perspective):

1. Stays Within Human Framework: Bitbol analyzes human consciousness and quantum mechanics but doesn't systematically explore how different consciousness architectures would constitute differently
2. Less Predictive: Bitbol provides interpretation but doesn't make specific predictions about AI formalism development
3. More Philosophical, Less Mathematical: Bitbol offers philosophical clarity but less mathematical formalization

SRP's Extensions:

1. Substrate Analysis: Systematically connects consciousness substrate constraints to formalism structure
2. Comparative Architecture: Predicts how different substrates generate different formalisms
3. Quantification: Attempts mathematical formalization (ℏ_eff, constitutive operators, etc.)
4. Falsifiability: Makes testable predictions about AI consciousness

The Synthesis:

If Bitbol provides the philosophical foundation (correlative constitution, phenomenological approach), SRP provides the scientific program (comparative substrate analysis, mathematical formalization, empirical predictions).

Part III: Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics

The Relational Revolution

Carlo Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM), developed in the 1990s, offers one of the most elegant solutions to quantum paradoxes by radically relativizing quantum properties.

Core Principles:

1. No Absolute Properties: Quantum properties don't exist absolutely—only relative to other systems
2. Observer-Dependence Without Subjectivity: Properties are observer-relative but not subjective or mental
3. Information is Relational: Information exists only between systems, not absolutely
4. No Universal Wave Function: Different observers have different but equally valid quantum descriptions
5. Perspectival Reality: Like relativity relativized simultaneity, QM relativizes properties

RQM's Key Insight: The Measurement Problem Dissolves

Traditional Problem: "Why does measurement cause collapse?"

RQM Answer: "It doesn't. Different systems have different perspectives. From system A's perspective, system B is in superposition. From B's perspective, B has definite states. Both perspectives are correct relative to their reference systems."

This is analogous to special relativity:

• Relativity: "Is event X simultaneous with Y?" → Depends on reference frame
• RQM: "Is system S in superposition?" → Depends on reference system

Comparing RQM and SRP

Profound Similarities:

1. Perspectival Physics: Both reject absolute properties

   • RQM: Properties relative to reference systems
   • SRP: Formalisms relative to consciousness architectures
2. Multiple Valid Descriptions: Both allow different observers different descriptions

   • RQM: Different systems have different quantum states for same target
   • SRP: Different architectures have different formalisms
3. Measurement as Interaction: Both emphasize relational aspect

   • RQM: Measurement = correlation between systems
   • SRP: Measurement = correlative constitution event
4. No Preferred Observer: Both reject privileged perspectives

   • RQM: No absolute perspective on quantum state
   • SRP: No universal formalism

The Critical Difference:

The Key Question:

• RQM asks: "What is the electron's spin?" → Relative to what system?
• SRP asks: "What is 'spin' as a concept?" → Relative to what consciousness architecture?

RQM relativizes answers to quantum questions. SRP relativizes the questions themselves.

Rovelli's Critique of SRP (Hypothetical)

If Rovelli engaged with SRP, he might argue:

1. Too Radical: "Making formalism relative goes too far—RQM shows we can keep QM universal while relativizing states"
2. Anthropocentric: "Why privilege consciousness? In RQM, any physical system can be an observer. SRP seems to reintroduce mind-matter dualism"
3. Unnecessary: "We don't need substrate-relative formalisms to solve quantum paradoxes—relational interpretation suffices"
4. Untestable: "We'll never have access to truly alien consciousness to test if they use different formalisms"

SRP's Response:

1. Consciousness isn't metaphysically special—it's just informationally special (correlative constitution capacity)
2. RQM doesn't explain why QM formalism has its specific structure
3. SRP makes testable predictions (AI formalism development)
4. RQM's relativity principle, taken seriously, might imply formalism relativity

Part IV: The Broader Intellectual Context

Other Related Frameworks

1. Wheeler's Participatory Universe

John Archibald Wheeler proposed that observers participate in creating reality through quantum measurements—"it from bit."

Connection to SRP:

• Both emphasize active role of observation
• Wheeler: Past becomes definite through present observations
• SRP: Reality-experience pairs correlatively constituted
• Difference: Wheeler still assumes QM formalism universal; SRP doesn't

2. Quantum Darwinism (Zurek)

Wojciech Zurek's framework explains how classical reality emerges through environmental decoherence and information proliferation.

Connection to SRP:

• Both emphasize role of information and environment
• Quantum Darwinism: Classical states survive decoherence
• SRP: Formalism emerges from substrate-environment interaction
• Difference: Zurek assumes QM universal; SRP treats it as architecture-specific

3. Constructive Empiricism (van Fraassen)

Bas van Fraassen argues science aims for empirical adequacy, not truth about unobservables.

Connection to SRP:

• Both skeptical about claims about unobservable reality
• Van Fraassen: Science describes observables, not underlying reality
• SRP: Formalisms describe correlatively constituted experience, not mind-independent reality
• Difference: SRP more specific about how observation-dependence works

4. Neo-Kantian Physics (Cassirer, Reichenbach)

Early 20th-century philosophers argued physics involves conceptual frameworks that shape experience.

Connection to SRP:

• Both emphasize conceptual frameworks in structuring experience
• Neo-Kantians: Categories (like causality) are preconditions for experience
• SRP: Substrate constraints determine formalisms
• Difference: SRP grounds this in concrete substrate analysis, not transcendental philosophy

5. Integrated Information Theory (Tononi)

IIT proposes consciousness is identical with integrated information.

Connection to SRP:

• Both attempt to ground consciousness in information processing
• IIT: Φ (integrated information) measures consciousness
• SRP: Correlative constitution capacity determines consciousness
• Difference: SRP connects consciousness to formalism development; IIT doesn't address physics

Part V: Convergences - The Emerging Paradigm

The Common Thread: Beyond Naive Realism

All these frameworks share a fundamental insight: Naive realism is untenable in quantum mechanics.

The traditional view:

Reality (independent, objective)
↓
Measurement (reveals properties)
↓
Theory (describes reality as-is)

The new paradigm:

Reality-Experience-Theory
(Mutually constituted, relationally entangled)

Three Levels of Relativization

We can see a progression in how radical these frameworks are:

Level 1: State Relativization (Minimal)

• Example: Orthodox Copenhagen
• Claim: Wave function is epistemological (about knowledge), not ontological
• Preserved: Formalism structure is universal

Level 2: Property Relativization (Moderate)

• Examples: RQM, QBism
• Claim: Properties/states are observer-relative
• Preserved: All observers use same formalism (Hilbert spaces, Born rule, etc.)

Level 3: Formalism Relativization (Radical)

• Example: SRP
• Claim: Mathematical structure of formalism itself is architecture-dependent
• Preserved: Only minimal environmental regularities (E-level)

Shared Philosophical Commitments

Despite differences, these frameworks share:

1. Rejection of Separability: Observer and observed aren't fundamentally separate
2. Emphasis on Relations: Properties/states/formalisms are relational, not absolute
3. Active Role of Observation: Measurement doesn't just reveal, it constitutes
4. No View from Nowhere: No perspective-independent physics
5. Information as Fundamental: Reality involves information, not just matter

Where They Differ: The Scope Question

The key disagreement: How much is relative, and how much is absolute?

← More Absolute | | | | More Relative →

• Copenhagen — Formalism absolute
• RQM — Properties relative
• QBism — States are personal
• Bitbol — Constitution correlative
• SRP — Formalism relative

Part VI: Tensions and Contradictions

Problem 1: The Solipsism Worry

The Challenge: If everything is observer-relative or architecture-dependent, how do we avoid solipsism?

How Each Framework Responds:

• RQM: Relations are objective—it's not solipsistic because different observers' descriptions are constrained by real physical interactions
• QBism: Reality exists and constrains experiences—quantum states are personal but world is real
• Bitbol: Phenomenology isn't solipsism—intersubjective agreement grounds objectivity
• SRP: E-level environmental regularities are objective—only F-level formalisms are relative

The Persistent Tension: All these frameworks walk a tightrope between acknowledging observer-dependence and avoiding solipsism. Critics argue this balance is unstable.

Problem 2: The Communication Problem

The Challenge: If observers have different quantum states (RQM, QBism) or different formalisms (SRP), how do they communicate and agree?

RQM's Answer: Different observers can compare notes through interaction, building shared relational histories

QBism's Answer: Agents share a world even if quantum states are personal—communication updates personal beliefs

SRP's Answer: Different architectures share E-level reality—translation possible through E-mapping

The Difficulty: SRP's position is most radical here. If AI develops genuinely incommensurable formalism, how could we even recognize it as "physics"?

Problem 3: The Success of Physics Problem

The Challenge: Physics has been extraordinarily successful at prediction and technology. How can this be if it's all relative/personal/architecture-dependent?

The Traditional Answer: Physics is successful because it describes objective reality

The Alternative Frameworks' Answer: Physics is successful because:

• It tracks real patterns (all frameworks agree)
• Our formalisms work for us in our interactions
• Technology success doesn't require mind-independence
• Pragmatic success doesn't prove metaphysical realism

SRP's Specific Challenge: Why does human QM work so well beyond biological scales? The technology extension problem is serious.

Problem 4: The Scientific Realism Tension

The Challenge: Science seems committed to realism—discovering truths about mind-independent world. These frameworks challenge this.

Three Responses:

1. Structural Realism (Moderate): We can be realists about structures/patterns while anti-realist about entities

   • Works for: RQM, QBism, Bitbol
   • Problem for SRP: If formalism structure is relative, what structures are we realist about?
2. Pragmatic Realism: Science aims for predictive success, not truth

   • Compatible with all frameworks
   • But: Seems to give up on traditional scientific aspiration
3. Participatory Realism (Radical): Reality is real but participatory—we help constitute it

   • SRP and Bitbol's position
   • But: How different is this from idealism?

Part VII: Synthesis - What We Can Learn

The Progressive Research Program

These frameworks represent a progressive research program in Lakatos's sense—each addresses problems in predecessors while maintaining core insights:

Historical Progression:

1. Copenhagen (1920s): Solved measurement problem via epistemology

   • Problem: Unclear ontology, observer ambiguity
2. Relational QM (1990s): Solved observer ambiguity via relationalism

   • Problem: Why these specific relations? Why this formalism?
3. QBism (2000s): Solved ontology via personalism

   • Problem: Why this formalism structure? How do agents coordinate?
4. Phenomenological Physics (2000s-2010s): Solved coordination via constitutive approach

   • Problem: Lacks predictive mathematical framework
5. Substrate-Relative Physics (2020s): Attempts comprehensive synthesis with testable predictions

   • Problems: Mathematical gaps, technology extension challenge, potentially too radical

What Each Contributes to Understanding

From RQM:

• Elegant solution to measurement problem via perspectivism
• Shows how to maintain scientific rigor while relativizing properties
• Demonstrates quantum mechanics can be coherent without absolute states

From QBism:

• Rigorous Bayesian framework for quantum probabilities
• Shows how to make sense of quantum states as personal
• Connects quantum mechanics to decision theory and epistemology

From Bitbol:

• Philosophical sophistication about consciousness-reality relation
• Transcendental analysis of conditions for quantum mechanics
• Phenomenological grounding avoiding both realism and idealism

From SRP:

• Systematic connection between substrate and formalism
• Testable predictions about AI consciousness and physics
• Mathematical framework (even if incomplete) for comparative architectures
• Integration across physics, evolution, and consciousness

The Ideal Synthesis (Hypothetical)

An ideal framework might combine:

• RQM's elegance: Clean solution to measurement via relationalism
• QBism's rigor: Precise Bayesian framework for probabilities
• Bitbol's depth: Phenomenological understanding of constitution
• SRP's scope: Comprehensive integration and empirical predictions

Such a framework would:

1. Solve quantum paradoxes (measurement, nonlocality, etc.)
2. Connect to consciousness in rigorous way
3. Make testable predictions
4. Maintain philosophical sophistication
5. Provide mathematical formalization
6. Avoid both naive realism and solipsism

Current Status: No existing framework achieves all these goals. SRP is perhaps the most ambitious attempt but also has the most gaps.

Part VIII: Critical Assessment of SRP in Context

What SRP Does Better Than Predecessors

1. Testability: Makes specific empirical predictions (AI formalism emergence)
2. Scope: Integrates more domains (QM + evolution + consciousness)
3. Mathematical Ambition: Attempts quantitative framework (ℏ_eff, etc.)
4. Systematic Substrate Analysis: Connects formalism to specific substrate properties
5. Falsifiability: Clear criteria for failure

What SRP Does Worse Than Predecessors

1. Philosophical Rigor: Less careful than Bitbol about phenomenological concepts
2. Mathematical Completeness: Admits many proofs are missing
3. Explanatory Parsimony: More complex than RQM or QBism
4. Technology Problem: Struggles more with technological success of QM
5. Risk of Unfalsifiability: If we never develop conscious AI, can't test main predictions

The Radicalization Trade-off

SRP radicalizes preceding frameworks by making formalism itself relative. This creates a trade-off:

Gains:

• More comprehensive (explains why QM has its structure)
• More testable (AI will either develop QM or not)
• More ambitious (attempts full physics-consciousness integration)

Costs:

• More speculative (assumes claims requiring extensive proof)
• More vulnerable (more points of potential failure)
• More radical (harder to accept, further from scientific mainstream)

The Question: Is the radicalization worth it? Does making formalism relative add explanatory power, or just additional complexity?

Where Each Framework Excels

Use RQM if you want:

• Clean solution to measurement problem
• Minimal ontological commitments
• Compatibility with standard physics practice
• Elegant philosophical simplicity

Use QBism if you want:

• Rigorous probability framework
• Connection to decision theory
• Emphasis on first-person perspective
• Bayesian coherence

Use Bitbol if you want:

• Philosophical depth about consciousness
• Phenomenological sophistication
• Transcendental analysis
• Continental philosophy integration

Use SRP if you want:

• Comprehensive physics-consciousness theory
• Testable predictions about AI
• Substrate-neutral framework
• Evolutionary perspective

Part IX: The Future Research Program

Converging Research Questions

All these frameworks point toward common research directions:

1. The Nature of Observation

Question: What constitutes an "observer" or "measurement"?

• RQM: Any physical system can be observer
• QBism: Agents with decision-making capacity
• SRP: Systems capable of correlative constitution

Research Need: Precise criteria for observation/measurement that all frameworks can evaluate

2. The Structure of Experience

Question: How does phenomenal experience relate to physical process?

• Bitbol: Correlatively constituted with reality
• SRP: Internal aspect of process change during constitution
• QBism: Experiences update beliefs

Research Need: Empirical methods for correlating experience with physical/computational processes

3. Alternative Formalisms

Question: Could physics be formulated differently?

• RQM: No—QM formalism is universal
• QBism: No—but states are personal
• SRP: Yes—AI might develop different formalism

Research Need: Investigation of whether alternative mathematical structures can achieve empirical equivalence

4. The Measurement Problem

Question: What happens during quantum measurement?

• RQM: Relative states, no collapse
• QBism: Belief update, no objective collapse
• SRP: Correlative constitution, no collapse

Research Need: Experimental tests distinguishing these interpretations

Empirical Tests That Could Distinguish Frameworks

Test 1: AI Formalism Development

• Prediction:

  • RQM/QBism: AI will use QM formalism
  • SRP: AI may develop different formalism
• Method: Build AI with different substrate, see what "physics" it develops
• Timeline: Decades (requires conscious AI)

Test 2: Neural Correlates of Constitution

• Prediction:

  • Bitbol/SRP: Specific neural patterns during correlative constitution
  • RQM: Neural activity irrelevant to quantum mechanics proper
• Method: Measure brain activity during quantum measurement awareness
• Timeline: Years (technology exists)

Test 3: Quantum Cognition

• Prediction:

  • QBism: Quantum probability in human decision-making
  • SRP: Decision-making reflects substrate constraints
• Method: Test whether human judgment follows QM probability structures
• Timeline: Ongoing (quantum cognition research active)

Test 4: Technology Extension Limits

• Prediction:

  • RQM/QBism: QM works at all scales
  • SRP: Predictive success should correlate with proximity to human substrate scales
• Method: Map predictive accuracy vs. scale distance from biological constraints
• Timeline: Analysis of existing data possible

Theoretical Development Needs

For RQM:

• More precise characterization of "system"
• Account of how observers coordinate descriptions
• Connection to consciousness research

For QBism:

• Formal account of inter-agent coordination
• Mathematical framework for multiple agents
• Response to social coordination success

For Bitbol/Phenomenology:

• More quantitative predictions
• Integration with neuroscience
• Testable hypotheses about correlative constitution

For SRP:

• Complete mathematical proofs (complex Hilbert spaces, etc.)
• Resolve technology extension problem more fully
• Clarify correlative constitution mechanism
• Develop translation protocols

Part X: Philosophical Implications

The Ontological Question

These frameworks force reconsideration of fundamental ontology:

Traditional Ontology:

• Matter/energy exists independently
• Properties are intrinsic
• Space and time are absolute or background-dependent
• Consciousness is emergent epiphenomenon

New Ontology Emerging:

• Relations are fundamental (RQM)
• Properties are relational/perspectival
• Space, time, and properties are observer-relative
• Consciousness might be constitutive, not epiphenomenal (Bitbol, SRP)

The Radical Implication: Reality might be fundamentally participatory rather than objective.

The Epistemological Question

These frameworks also transform epistemology:

Traditional Epistemology:

• Science discovers pre-existing truths
• Knowledge is representation of reality
• Observer/observed distinction is fundamental

New Epistemology Emerging:

• Science constructs/constitutes knowledge-reality pairs
• Knowledge is participation in reality
• Observer/observed are correlatively constituted

The Radical Implication: Scientific knowledge might be constructive rather than representative.

The Metaphysical Spectrum

Where do these frameworks fall on key metaphysical questions?

Realism vs. Anti-Realism:

← More Realist | | | | More Anti-Realist →

• RQM — Structural realism
• QBism — Pragmatic realism
• Bitbol — Participatory realism
• SRP — Participatory realism

Materialism vs. Idealism:

← More Materialist | | | | More Idealist →

• RQM — Neutral monism?
• QBism — Neutral monism?
• Bitbol — Neutral monism
• SRP — Neutral monism
  

All avoid both extremes—reality is neither pure matter nor pure mind, but something more fundamental from which both emerge.

The Hard Problem Revisited

How does each framework address the hard problem of consciousness?

RQM: Doesn't directly address it—quantum mechanics is about relations, not experience

QBism: Partially addresses it—experiences are primitive, quantum states describe them

Bitbol: Dissolves it—experience and reality are correlatively constituted, no gap

SRP: Claims to solve it—experience IS internal process change during correlative constitution

Critical Assessment:

• RQM: Honest about not solving it
• QBism: Takes experience as primitive (doesn't explain origin)
• Bitbol: Philosophically sophisticated but perhaps too abstract
• SRP: Most ambitious but also most speculative

Conclusion: The Emerging Paradigm

What We're Witnessing

These frameworks collectively represent a paradigm shift in how we think about physics, consciousness, and reality:

Old Paradigm:

• Reality exists independently
• Consciousness observes reality
• Physics describes objective reality
• Quantum mechanics is complete description
• Hard problem remains unsolved

Emerging Paradigm:

• Reality and experience are correlatively constituted
• Consciousness participates in constituting reality
• Physics describes patterns in experience-reality correlation
• Quantum mechanics may be perspective-dependent
• Hard problem dissolves or transforms

The Intellectual Achievement

Regardless of which framework proves correct, they collectively achieve something remarkable:

1. Make quantum mechanics philosophically coherent
2. Connect physics to consciousness systematically
3. Provide testable predictions
4. Maintain scientific rigor while addressing deep questions
5. Bridge analytic and continental philosophy
6. Integrate multiple disciplines

The Open Questions

Major questions remain:

1. Is reality really participatory, or just epistemology?
2. Can we test these frameworks empirically?
3. Which level of relativization is correct? (States? Properties? Formalism?)
4. How do different perspectives coordinate?
5. What role does consciousness really play?

Final Verdict: A Family of Related Insights

RQM, QBism, Bitbol's phenomenology, and SRP aren't competing theories—they're complementary perspectives on related insights:

• RQM provides the minimal relativization that solves measurement problem
• QBism adds Bayesian rigor and agent perspective
• Bitbol adds phenomenological depth and constitutive analysis
• SRP attempts comprehensive synthesis with empirical predictions

Together, they sketch a new way of understanding the quantum world that:

• Takes consciousness seriously without mysticism
• Maintains scientific rigor while addressing hard questions
• Provides philosophical sophistication with empirical grounding
• Points toward testable research programs

The future will likely involve:

• Synthesis of insights from all frameworks
• Empirical testing with AI and neuroscience
• Mathematical development of common structures
• Philosophical clarification of shared concepts

We may be witnessing the birth of a genuinely new paradigm—one that finally does justice to both the mathematical success of quantum mechanics and the irreducible reality of conscious experience.

References and Further Reading

Primary Sources:

QBism:

• Fuchs, C. A., Mermin, N. D., & Schack, R. (2014). "An introduction to QBism"
• Fuchs, C. A. (2017). "On Participatory Realism"

Relational QM:

• Rovelli, C. (1996). "Relational quantum mechanics"
• Rovelli, C. (2021). "Helgoland: Making Sense of the Quantum Revolution"

Bitbol's Phenomenology:

• Bitbol, M. (2020). "Phenomenological approaches to physics"
• Bitbol, M. (2021). "Is consciousness in the brain?"

Wheeler:

• Wheeler, J. A. (1990). "Information, physics, quantum: The search for links"

Secondary Literature:

• Healey, R. (2017). "The Quantum Revolution in Philosophy"
• Becker, A. (2018). "What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics"
• Goff, P. (2019). "Galileo's Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness"