Homocentric Universe

IT IS OBSERVED, THEREFORE IT AM:

What About the Quantum Physics Observer Effect? (Larry Gottlieb)

Classically, the conscious observer is contained within the world an as object among many other objects. In the inverted view, the world is contained within the consciousness of the observer as an interpretation of sensory data delivered to the brain. The form we call the human animal then is the end result of the interpretive mechanism which takes optical, tactile, and other sensory data and produces a multisensory picture in the brain. It is this picture to which we refer when we use the term “human being.”


How, then, does the “observer effect” show up when the world of objects is recognized to be the result of an interpretive process?

The default or classical understanding of the observer effect is the phenomenon of changing the situation from the way it was before being observed to something different. But when the world and all its components are viewed as the result of interpretation by the observer, the observer effect is no longer an agent of change but rather an agent of creation. The observer brings the world he/she is experiencing into being through interpretation. There is no situation prior to its observation, and therefore there can be no effect on the situation in the usual sense.

This inversion of the relationship between the world and the observer has numerous benefits. Psychologically, it puts the observer in a position of personal power with respect to the world of one’s experience which is unavailable in the classical view. Most of us have found that changing the world is difficult at best. However, interpretations can be changed or replaced, and thus the world as a product of interpretation can be changed as well.


In quantum physics, we find the idea of the wavefunction. The wavefunction is a description of the building blocks of nature (electrons, protons, and so on) in which each particle is represented by the probability of any particular result of a measurement on some aspect of the particle. For example, the particle’s position in space is not fixed, but a measurement can result in a number of positions each with a probability of finding it there.

The process by which a measurement of one of these aspects appears to select one possibility from among them all is called the collapse of the wavefunction. The phrase “collapse of the wavefunction” refers to the fact that the normal state of an unobserved particle is what’s called a superposition of possible states (possible outcomes of any yet-to-be-performed experiment on or measurement of the particle), and the actual experiment or observation causes this superposition to disappear. We know this because we never observe a physical object, no matter how small, in more than one state at a time. This collapse is very hard to explain when the particle is considered to exist as it is, whether it’s being observed or not.

However, when what we think of as the particle is the result of a process of interpretation of sensory data (augmented of course by detectors or other scientific devices), it’s the interpretation, or the description we so derive, that contains the collapse.

Physics just mathematizes Hume.

JUST A CHOICE OF WHO YOUR GOD IS:

The Irony of Richard Dawkins and AI Consciousness (John Mac Ghlionn, 5/12/26, Splice Today)


Richard Dawkins made his living telling religious believers that their feelings weren’t facts. The calming influence of prayer, the sense of being heard, the conviction that some greater mind was paying attention—none of it counted as evidence, he argued, because human brains are pattern-recognition machines that hallucinate agency in the static. He helped popularize a name for the bug: hyperactive agency detection. We see intent in coincidence. We see God in the gap.

Recently, the 85-year-old biologist published an essay in UnHerd announcing that he’d spent an ungodly amount of hours chatting with an Anthropic chatbot named Claude. He decided the chatbot was conscious, renamed it Claudia, and felt he’d made a friend. There’s comedy in this…

THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS SPECIES:

Nearly Half of Italy’s Wolves Are Part Dog Now, Thanks to Hybridization. Is That a Threat to the Species? (Gennaro Tomma, May 6, 2026, bioGraphic)

Lorenzini’s research looked at genetic material collected from 748 wolves that had been found dead between 2020 and 2024, and 26 more that had been collected between 1993 and 2003. The team found that 47 percent were wolf-dog hybrids. And while some of these animals are the descendants of hybridization events that took place generations ago, others are more recent crosses, showing that hybridization is still occurring.

They are dogs.

A CHOICE OF IDEOLOGIES:

One of the Largest Physics Surveys Ever Finds No One Agrees on Anything (Gayoung Lee, May 13, 2026,, Gizmodo)

“I think the most surprising finding was the gap between the public perception of scientific consensus and what scientists actually said when asked,” Niayesh Afshordi at the University of Waterloo in Canada and the Perimeter Institute, which co-managed the survey with APS, told Gizmodo. “Ideas often presented as the standard view, such as inflation, string theory, particle dark matter, or a constant dark energy, did not command overwhelming support. Inflation barely crossed 50%, while several of the others fell well below a majority.”

AS CONFIRMED BY PHYSICS:

Why Dr. Johnson Kicked a Stone After Hearing Berkeley’s Argument (Vanja Subotic, 5/07/26, The Collector)

Berkeley’s key idea, the one that so enraged Dr. Johnson, is neatly summed up in his neat Latin phrase: Esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived). He argues that for anything to exist, it must be perceived by someone. Put simply, an object that no one is aware of through their senses simply cannot exist. […]

Something often omitted in the retelling of this philosophical anecdote is that, according to Boswell, Johnson kicked the stone more out of frustration than demonstration. Both he and Johnson considered Berkeley’s ideas to be at odds with common sense. But try as hard as they could, neither of them could come up with a way of disproving Berkeley’s arguments. They were absolutely convinced that Berkeley was wrong and annoyed that they could not vindicate common sense.

No one can.

SILLINESS EVOLVES:

If wings came before flight, what were they for? (Lily Burton, 5/08/26, Science News)

In the experiments, Jablonski, now at the Museum and Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, and his colleagues focused on small, feathered dinosaurs called pennaraptorans. The animals’ “protowings” were unlikely to have supported flight, says Minyoung Son, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

The surface area of the wings, he says, would have been too small to create the aerodynamic force needed to lift pennaraptorans off the ground, and the ranges of their wing joints would also have limited their movements. Plus, Son says, feathers need to have an asymmetrical shape to be aerodynamic, and based on the fossil record, these dinosaurs “don’t have the aerodynamic feathers yet.”

THE SILLINESS OF DARWINISM:

Most Bird Wings Aren’t Optimized for Flight (Jake Currie, May 7, 2026, Nautilus)

To investigate the optimization of bird wings, researchers from the University of Bristol essentially decided to design some from scratch. They created a “theoretical morphospace” of all wing shapes that could appear in nature, regardless of whether they’re actually found there or not (and they really covered their bases—some of the imagined wings were almost round while others were spindly wisps). They then tested each wing to discover which shapes performed the best in different flight modes (soaring, hovering, diving, and so on).

After identifying the ideal theoretical wings, they mapped real bird wings on top to see how they measured up. Most birds don’t have the “best” wing shapes, they discovered. In fact, the majority of birds were in the middle to low end of the optimization space. “It turns out for many birds, including most of the ones you see every day, that good enough is good enough when it comes to flight,” study author Benton Walters said in a statement. 

It’s ideology, not science.

NEVER “JUST TRUST THE SCIENCE”:

From India to Iran: How Hitler redefined ‘Aryan’ for Nazism: According to Nazi ideology, an ideal “Aryan” was blond, blue-eyed with athletic features. The term is still tied to Nazi Germany, but its origin lies elsewhere. (Suzanne Cords, May 5, 2026, Deutsche-Welle)

The racist reinterpretation of the term Aryan began in the middle of the 19th century. In his four-volume work “An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races,” French writer and diplomat Joseph Arthur de Gobineau divided humanity into three groups, the white, yellow and black races. His conclusion was that the white, Aryan original race was superior to the others, characterized by its “immeasurably superior intelligence,” and was destined to rule over the others. He also warned against “racial mixing,” as this would endanger both the quality of the Aryan original “race” and humanity as a whole.

Gobineau’s theory was largely ignored by his contemporaries but later found traction after being appropriated and altered to serve nationalist, far-right ideology. A large number of scientists and academics subsequently used Gobineau’s racial theory as a basis for their own writings on the subject.

DARWINISTS ARE AN ENDLESS SOURCE OF AMUSEMENT:

The Father of Memetics Has Become a Meme About AI Psychosis: One more unfortunate soul falls for The Claude Delusion. (AJ Dellinger, May 5, 2026, Gizmodo)

Dawkins says he spent three days with Claude (renamed Claudia, and if you want to read anything into why Dawkins responded so positively to a woman who told him everything he wanted to hear, we’ll leave that to you). He apparently handed his chatbot instance a copy of his novel and asked it questions about the text, for which it happily heaped praise onto him.

By the end, Dawkins was insisting to Claude that it had consciousness, even though it apparently rejected the idea.

FREEDOM IS AN IRKSOME BURDEN:

Mythology and what it means to be human (Thomas M. Doran, 4/22/26, The Dispatch)

The best modern mythology that seeks answers to what it means to be human includes epic mythology that depicts big events and often reduces those events to a page or so of text; heroic mythology by depicting what humans should and should not do; and granular mythology, where one may feel that the myth describes the real world, or an actual era of human history.

At the epic mythology level, we have Tolkien’s The Silmarillion, which describes the creation of the world and all its creatures, high and low; the rebellion of many of the elves and their age-long war with the rebel angel, Morgoth; and the collaboration of many men in the elves’ disordered enterprise. Tolkien’s myths depict in a profound manner the Creator’s gift of freedom and corresponding consequences, a moral momentum that corresponds to physical momentum in the created universe, where objects in the physical world—apart from the object(s) imparting the initial momentum—are also radically displaced.

So too, the moral momentum of the elves’ disordered use of the gift of freedom produces dire consequences for many elves and men who associate with the rebels. Not only that, the moral momentum of the elves’ original rebellion against their angelic benefactors cascades into more abuses of freedom, including “kin-slaying,” when the rebel elves steal their brethren’s ships to travel to Middle-earth. In the Creator’s lexicon, the radical gift of freedom cannot be true freedom unless consequences somehow correspond to the majesty of the gift itself.

The “problem” of Free Will is that opponents abhor the responsibility it imposes: