Submitted:
15 July 2025
Posted:
15 July 2025
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
The ideal of objectivity as observer-independent truth has shaped scientific thought since early modern times. Yet contemporary science reveals that all knowledge is perspective-bound: embedded, embodied, and enacted observers participate in constructing coherent accounts of reality. This work develops a synthetic, observer-based epistemology that unifies insights from physics, chemistry, biology, cognitive science, ecology, and philosophy, showing how structured intersubjective mechanisms allow perspectival integration into scientifically valid knowledge across domains.
Keywords:
Observers
; Agents
; Objectivity
; Science
; Relational Epistemology
; Natural sciences
; Social suystems
; Ecological systems
; Embodiment
1. Introduction
Scientific modeling has traditionally aspired to objectivity by minimizing or eliminating the role of the observer. From classical mechanics through much of twentieth-century physics, models were expected to describe an observer-independent, “objective” reality. Yet insights from quantum mechanics, cognitive science, and systems theory show that this ideal is both conceptually limited and methodologically problematic. Observers are not external to the systems they study. They are embedded agents whose interactions shape both the process of observation and the very structures being observed and modeled.
This article argues that embedding observer-dependence as a central feature of knowledge generation and epistemology provides a coherent and unifying framework for addressing long-standing conceptual, methodological, and philosophical conundrums across disciplines. Rather than seeing observer role as subjective and detrimental for science, we position them as structurally essential elements of scientific modeling.
From Immanuel Kant’s (1781/1998) Critique of Pure Reason to John Wheeler’s (1990) participatory universe, the importance of observation and information as foundational to reality has become increasingly apparent. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker’s “Ur-Theorie” (1985/2006) anticipates Wheeler’s participatory universe by proposing that the fundamental building blocks of reality are not particles or fields, but elementary units of binary alternatives—so-called “Urs.” Both perspectives emphasize observation and information as foundational to physical reality, with von Weizsäcker’s work laying conceptual groundwork for later information-theoretic approaches such as Wheeler’s “it from bit”.
Quantum mechanics, particularly through Bohr (1935) and Heisenberg (1927), brought observer effects to the forefront, fundamentally challenging classical notions of objective reality. Modern physics reveals that attempts to model reality without reference to observers encounter conceptual and methodological impasses. Relational epistemology offers a coherent alternative, framing knowledge as inherently tied to structured interactions between observers and systems.
We develop an observer/actor-based operational-relational epistemology that situates agency and perspective as fundamental, objective (i.e., inter-subjective) features of reality. Drawing from Relational Quantum Mechanics (Rovelli, 1996, 2021), Quantum Bayesianism (Fuchs et al., 2014), Operational Probabilistic Theories (Hardy, 2011; Höhn, 2019; Leifer & Spekkens, 2014), information-based observer frameworks (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2011, 2016, 2017; Fields, 2012), the Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock & Margulis, 1974), and relativity theory (Einstein, 1905; 1915), we present a unified model that bridges physical foundations, information science, cognitive systems, social theory, ecology, philosophy and related fields.
2. Observer-Based Relational Structures and Knowledge Across Scales
Observer-dependence is not confined to quantum mechanics; it recurs as a central feature across natural and social sciences. From subatomic particles to ecological systems, embedding the observer within models allows for clearer, more robust explanations of complex phenomena.
Observer-Based Relational Epistemology in Physics
In quantum mechanics, both Relational Quantum Mechanics (Rovelli, 1996; 2021) and Quantum Bayesianism (Fuchs et al., 2014) exemplify frameworks where facts are not absolute but relative to the observer’s interaction with a system. Relational Quantum Mechanics proposes that all physical quantities are defined relative to a given observer, rejecting the notion of observer-independent facts. It maintains objective consistency through defined interaction protocols while emphasizing that facts are observer-relative and structured through causal interactions.
Quantum Bayesianism complements this relational perspective by interpreting quantum probabilities as reflecting individual belief updates based on new information. The wavefunction is treated not as an ontological entity but as an expression of subjective knowledge. Measurement, within this view, becomes an inherently observer-dependent process.
These insights extend naturally into fundamental physics challenges, such as quantum gravity and cosmology. In these domains, fixed reference frames break down. Loop Quantum Gravity (Rovelli, 2021) models spacetime itself as a network of quantized relations—spin networks—applying relational principles from Relational Quantum Mechanics to the scale of spacetime geometry. Internal time frameworks (Höhn, 2019) further develop this relational approach by proposing models where time itself is an emergent, observer-relative phenomenon.
Special and general relativity (Einstein, 1905; 1915) embed observer-dependence through the formalization of reference frames. In special relativity, measurements of time, length, and simultaneity depend on the observer’s state of motion relative to what is being measured. In general relativity, gravitational effects further shape the structure of spacetime as perceived by different observers. While relativity preserves objectivity through invariant quantities like the spacetime interval and Einstein field equations, it simultaneously demonstrates that many physical properties are observer-relative in precisely defined ways. Relativity thus reinforces the core insight of relational epistemology: facts about systems, including those as fundamental as temporal duration and spatial extension, are conditioned by structured interactions with observers. Observer-dependence is not a conceptual problem in quantum theory alone but a structural feature evident across physics as a whole.
Observer-Based Relational Epistemology in Chemistry
Traditional molecular chemistry treats chemical identity as an intrinsic property of isolated substances. Yet in supramolecular chemistry, binding affinities and functional properties emerge from context-dependent interactions shaped by solvents, temperature, and competing species (Lehn, 1995). From an observer-dependent standpoint, chemical identity in such systems is relational: it depends on the experimental setup and the conditions under which observations occur. This perspective not only resolves inconsistencies in chemical modeling but also aligns with advances in systems chemistry and origin-of-life studies, where autocatalytic networks define chemical function through dynamic relational structures (Kauffman, 1993; Hordijk & Steel, 2010).
Molecular systems, such as enzymes and proteins, exhibit observer-like behavior by responding to environmental changes through structural adjustments. The Free Energy Principle (Friston, 2010) conceptualizes these responses as information processing, where systems minimize surprise or prediction error. This connects biochemical observation with thermodynamic principles, suggesting a continuity between physics and biology.
In supramolecular chemistry, the binding properties of host–guest systems cannot be determined solely from the intrinsic characteristics of the molecules involved. Chemical identity emerges from context-dependent interactions: solvent environment, temperature, and the presence of competing molecules fundamentally shape observed outcomes (Lehn, 1995). The chemist’s observational setup directly influences what is considered a stable or functional complex, reinforcing the observer-dependent nature of chemical identity.
Modern computational methods in cheminformatics and machine learning reinforce this relational view. Molecules are represented as graph-theoretic networks where nodes and edges encode relational information about atomic arrangements and bonds (Gilmer et al., 2017). These models foreground relational definitions of chemical identity, aligning computational practice with observer-based epistemology.
Philosophers of chemistry, including Harré (1970) and Hendry (2006), have articulated these ideas more formally through relational ontologies. They argue that chemical kinds should be understood by their roles within broader interaction patterns and not as fixed essences. This perspective challenges reductionist approaches that attempt to derive all chemical behavior strictly from physics, resonating with systems biology and complex systems theory (Scerri, 2012).
Observer-Based Relational Epistemology in Biology and Cognitive Science
A parallel development is evident in biology. Living systems, from single cells to complex organisms, observe their environment through sensory and signaling pathways. Bayesian inference models (Knill & Pouget, 2004; Helland, 2021) describe how organisms update internal models to predict and respond to environmental stimuli. Observation supports a survival mechanism, embedding epistemic processes within biological structures.
Bacterial quorum sensing exemplifies relational agency within living systems. Individual bacteria release and detect signaling molecules, adjusting their behavior based on the local concentration of these signals. The transition from individual to collective behavior occurs when a critical threshold—quorum—is detected, but this threshold is not an absolute property. It is defined relative to each bacterium’s local environment, making bacterial coordination a biologically grounded example of observer-relative knowledge (Bassler & Losick, 2006).
Human cognition exemplifies scaled-up observation systems, integrating sensory-motor input-outputs with abstract reasoning, language, and culture. Artificial intelligence systems mirror this structure through reinforcement learning and neural networks that adjust based on feedback. Both biological and artificial observers highlight the principle of structured, adaptive information processing (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2011, 2016, 2017).
Observer-Based Relational Epistemology in Social and Ecological Systems
Observer-dependence extends beyond individual cognition and biological systems into collective, distributed systems such as societies and ecosystems. In social systems, observation occurs through structured communication. Niklas Luhmann (1995) proposed that social systems observe through communication, creating second-order observations that structure norms and institutions. This contrasts with Habermas’s (1984) emphasis on human agency within communicative action. Integrating both views illustrates how observation extends from individual agents to emergent social structures, operating through recursive feedback mechanisms.
In ecological systems, observer-dependence manifests as distributed sensing across scales. The Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock & Margulis, 1974) describes Earth's biosphere as a self-regulating system wherein atmospheric, biological, and geological components adjust to maintain life-supporting conditions. Coherence emerges from relational structures distributed across subsystems.
Panarchy theory models ecological systems as nested adaptive cycles (Gunderson & Holling, 2002), integrating local feedback loops conditioned by observer-relative measurements into broader regulatory patterns. Ostrom’s framework for commons governance (Ostrom, 2009) formalizes how local observational perspectives contribute to coherent collective management.
In ecological and social systems, multi-agent observational frameworks—such as distributed sensor networks or participatory governance models—make explicit the need to integrate diverse observer perspectives into a coherent whole. Scientific models in these domains rely on formal translation mechanisms that reconcile observer-relative reports into shared, inter-subjective, operationally consistent knowledge.
Observer-Based Relational Multi-Scale and Multi-Agent Integration
Across all domains—quantum systems, biological organisms, social networks, and ecosystems—observers function as embedded agents. Observer-relative facts are systematic structural features of knowledge generation. Relational Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Bayesianism demonstrate this in physics. In social and ecological systems, distributed sensing, participatory governance, and ecological monitoring rely on integrating multiple observer perspectives into intersubjectively valid frameworks (Friston, 2010; Luhmann, 1995; Lovelock & Margulis, 1974; Ostrom, 2009; Gunderson & Holling, 2002).
Formal multi-agent operational models, dynamic epistemic logic (van Benthem, 2011), and algorithmic information theory (Müller, 2020) provide theoretical scaffolding. Embedding observer agency is not optional: it is structurally necessary for coherent modeling across complex adaptive systems. These examples across scales are summarized as follows:
Table 1.
Summary of observer types across different scales.
| Domain | Type of Observer | Characteristics | Example |
| Quantum Physics | Quantum System (Rovelli, 1996; Fuchs et al., 2014) |
Relational state, observer-dependent | Electron spin measurement |
| Chemistry | Enzyme, Protein (Friston, 2010) | State adaptation | Protein folding |
| Biology | Cell, Organism (Knill & Pouget, 2004) |
Sensory pathways, Bayesian inference | Immune cell detecting pathogen |
| Cognitive Domain | Living systems, AI (Friston, 2010; Dodig-Crnkovic, 2011, 2016, 2017) |
Sensing, reasoning, learning, feedback adaptation | Bacterial quorum sensing, self-driving car updating route |
| Social | Communication systems (Luhmann, 1995) |
Second-order observations, recursive communication | Legal system adapting to new laws |
| Ecological | Ecosystem, Gaia hypothesis (Lovelock & Margulis, 1974) | Self-regulating feedback, dynamic equilibrium | Forest carbon regulation |
Informational and Computational Aspects
Integrating multi-scale observer theory with operational-relational physics requires acknowledging both informational (structural) and computational (dynamic) aspects of observation.
Informational aspects concern the structures generated by observers—objects, categories, and stable representations while computational aspects concern the processes through which observers adapt and update these structures via continuous interaction and feedback. Dodig-Crnkovic’s (2011, 2016, 2017) dual-aspect info-computational model captures this balance, illustrating how observers/actors/agents co-create stability and adaptability across organizational levels.
Informational Limits and Algorithmic Information Theory
Algorithmic information theory, as discussed by Müller (2020), proposes that certain physical laws may arise from intrinsic constraints on the informational capacity of observer states. This suggests a possible unification between information theory and physical epistemology, framing the limits of knowledge as conditioned by algorithmic compressibility and observer-dependent state spaces. Müller’s proposal emphasizes subtleties in how observer states relate to physical structure, beyond simplified summaries.
This connection between observer theory and algorithmic limits aligns with broader perspectives in complex systems and information science. Observers are not omniscient entities; their knowledge is constrained by both physical embodiment and computational resources. These limits must be formalized within multi-agent, multi-scale models.
Moving beyond compartmentalized scientific domains, observer-based relational epistemology offers a unified lens. Whether in quantum measurement, chemical reaction networks, cognitive systems, or ecological feedback loops, the observer is a necessary structural component shaping both the process and content of knowledge generation.
3. Epistemological Puzzles Solved by Observer-Centric Approach: Quantum Entanglement, and Continuum–Discrete Controversy
While the theoretical value of observer-based epistemology is substantial, its explanatory power becomes especially clear when applied to specific conceptual challenges that have persisted in scientific discourse. Two such cases, quantum entanglement and the discrete–continuous controversy, highlight how relational models offer coherent solutions where traditional, observer-independent frameworks encounter difficulties.
Quantum Entanglement Revisited
Quantum entanglement has long been portrayed as one of the most mysterious aspects of quantum theory, often framed as implying non-local physical connections between distant particles. From an observer-based perspective, however, entanglement reflects structured correlations in the knowledge and information available to observers rather than direct physical links between objects of observation. Relational Quantum Mechanics (Rovelli, 1996; 2021) and Quantum Bayesianism (Fuchs et al., 2014) both interpret entangled states as relative to specific observer interactions and measurements.
When an observer measures the spin of one particle in an entangled pair, their knowledge about the second particle becomes defined in accordance with conservation laws. However, this knowledge is not a global or absolute fact. A second observer, uninformed of the first measurement, still treats both particles as being in an undetermined superposition. The coherence of these differing accounts is maintained through operational translation rules: when observers compare notes, they find no contradictions. This reframing of entanglement not as a paradox but as an epistemological structure based in observation and measurement resolves longstanding debates over locality and realism in quantum theory (Fuchs & Schack, 2013; Brukner, 2015).
Discrete–Continuous Duality as an Epistemological Structure
The enduring debate over whether reality is fundamentally discrete or continuous presents a further epistemological puzzle. This question has deep philosophical roots stretching from ancient atomism to modern quantum mechanics and general relativity. In quantum theory, discrete elements such as quantized spin states and energy levels coexist with continuous structures like wavefunctions and probability distributions. Similarly, in cosmology and quantum gravity, questions about the granular structure of spacetime remain unresolved: does space consist of continuous fields or discrete units such as spin networks in Loop Quantum Gravity?
From a relational, observer-based perspective, this duality is reframed as an epistemological question. Observers interact with systems using finite cognitive and physical means, conditioning how information about reality is structured. Discrete and continuous models reflect complementary modes of epistemic structuring: discretization emerges through measurement processes and operational constraints, while continuous models capture relational gradients and probabilities. The puzzle is resolved not by privileging one mode over the other but by recognizing that both arise from observer-relative perspectives embedded in different contexts.
The solution is in the mechanism of observation. In human perception, cognitive science has documented dual modes of perceptual experience. Neural oscillation research shows that the human brain alternates between perceiving discrete events and continuous flows, depending on context and attentional demands (VanRullen, 2016). Neurocognitive studies (Lundqvist & Wutz, 2022; Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts, 2006) suggest that switching between these modes is regulated by oscillatory brain rhythms. Perceptual cycles segment continuous sensory streams into discrete moments, while integrative background activity supports continuous awareness.
4. Philosophical and Methodological Foundations of Observer-Based Epistemology
Observer-centric frameworks, while offering robust models for epistemology and physics, face persistent philosophical scrutiny. Two central concerns include the tension between instrumentalist interpretations and relational realism, and the challenge of avoiding solipsism while affirming intersubjectivity.
From Universal Objectivity to Structured Intersubjectivity
Historically, observer-dependence has been viewed as a threat to scientific objectivity—a source of unwanted subjectivity or bias. Since early modern science of Descartes and Newton, objectivity was equated with eliminating the physical observer, aspiring to universal laws detached from particular circumstances, reducing the observer to a point of view, Nagel’s (1986) “view from nowhere”. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1998) introduced a more nuanced understanding: objectivity depends not on erasing perspective but on structuring it through universally shared categories of understanding.
Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1998) redefined objectivity as structured by universally shared categories, embedding the observer’s role in epistemology.
Relativity theory (Einstein, 1905; 1915) and quantum mechanics made observer-dependence unavoidable. Reichenbach (1958) showed how simultaneity depends on frames of reference, while Nagel (1986) described this as a tension between the “view from nowhere” and perspectival knowledge.
Operational-relational epistemology advances this trajectory: observer-dependence is a structural necessity. Objectivity is reconceived as structured intersubjectivity—universal knowledge emerging through formal reconciliation of local, observer-relative accounts.
Relational Realism versus Instrumentalism
Although observer-centric frameworks might appear aligned with instrumentalism where theories serve merely as predictive tools without describing reality, operational-relational epistemology instead aligns with relational realism, such as Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics and Michela Massimi’s moderate perspectival realism, where relational objectivity is preserved through structured coherence. Observer capacities are framed as structurally embedded features of the world. Data/information /knowledge are intersubjectively structured through causal interactions and relational constraints.
Avoiding Solipsism through Intersubjectivity
A core philosophical challenge is ensuring that observer-relative facts do not devolve into solipsism. Operational-relational frameworks address this through intersubjective translation mechanisms: coherence conditions and shared operational protocols allow independent observers to reconcile differing perspectives into mutually comprehensible knowledge (Fuchs & Schack, 2013; Brukner, 2015).
In observer-based epistemological frameworks, scientific objectivity does not imply the elimination of observer-dependence. Instead, objectivity emerges through structured relational translation rules that allow different observers to compare, reconcile, and validate their measurements and descriptions. This process is foundational in both theoretical constructs like Relational Quantum Mechanics (Rovelli, 1996; 2021) and Quantum Bayesianism (Fuchs & Schack, 2013), as well as in broader scientific practice.
Operational-relational epistemology formalizes these translation mechanisms using shared operational protocols and coherence conditions. This principle applies across systems:
In physics, frame-of-reference transformations ensure that observers using different coordinate systems arrive at consistent descriptions of physical phenomena (Brukner, 2015).
In biology and cognitive science, distributed sensing and multi-agent models use shared encoding and decoding schemes to aggregate observer-relative data into collective biological or cognitive states (Friston, 2010).
In social and ecological systems, standardized observation protocols (e.g., ecological monitoring frameworks) enable coherent multi-agent reporting and action despite differing observational perspectives (Luhmann, 1995; Ostrom, 2009).
Perspectives from Contemporary Observer Theories
Stephen Wolfram’s recent work (2023) offers a complementary perspective on the observer’s role, particularly within his framework of the Wolfram Physics Project and the concept of the ruliad. Wolfram emphasizes that observers are computationally bounded agents who equivalence vast amounts of underlying complexity into reduced, manageable representations. This process is analogous to coarse graining in physics or lossy compression in information theory.
Wolfram proposes that fundamental laws of physics, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, may emerge from the characteristics of observers, specifically their computational limitations and belief in persistence over time. His observer theory generalizes beyond physical systems, applying equally to mathematical and linguistic domains, framing observers as systems that extract simplified narratives from complex underlying structures.
This perspective aligns with operational-relational epistemology by reinforcing the idea that observation is both constrained and constructive. Observers do not merely record pre-existing facts but actively generate coherent perceived realities by reducing and structuring information from the computationally irreducible substrate of the ruliad.
Relational Objectivity as a Foundational Principle
Relational objectivity as a foundational principle builds on earlier insights from cybernetics and second-order systems theory. Maturana’s (1988) ontology of the observer emphasizes not only individual observer agency but also the emergence of shared knowledge through linguistic coordination and consensual domains. Von Foerster’s work (2003) on self-referential systems complements this view, highlighting that observers are both products and producers of the systems they describe. In short, objectivity arises not from observer-independence but from structured intersubjective processes grounded in language, interaction, and recursive observation.
5. Conclusions
The central claim of this article is that taking observer-dependence seriously in scientific modeling provides conceptual coherence, methodological clarity and philosophical depth across disciplines. From quantum physics to chemistry, biology, cognitive science, and ecology, embedding observer agency as a structural feature helps resolve long-standing logical, methodological, and philosophical problems that static, observer-independent frameworks struggle to address.
Illustrative cases such as quantum entanglement, the discrete–continuous controversy, supramolecular chemistry, and quorum sensing, show that observer-based models do not weaken scientific objectivity understood as inter-subjectivity. On the contrary, they strengthen it by grounding intersubjective coherence in structured operational protocols. Where observer-dependence was once dismissed as incompatible with universal scientific objectivity, it is now recognized as an essential feature: observers are understood as active agents whose interactions with systems determine both the content and validation of knowledge.
Relational epistemology, as articulated through frameworks like Relational Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Bayesianism, and multi-agent systems theory, offers a unifying perspective that bridges traditionally separate scientific and philosophical domains. It challenges naïve realism while avoiding the pitfalls of radical subjectivism, positioning relational realism as a viable and productive approach to knowledge production.
By formalizing observer agency, scientific models gain both greater explanatory power and practical flexibility. Whether in fundamental physics, complex chemical systems, biological coordination, or distributed social and environmental systems, the observer is indispensable.
Observers are structurally necessary actors within any coherent epistemology. Synthesizing insights from diverse research domains, we advance an observer/actor-based operational-relational epistemology in which agency and perspective are recognized as foundational features of both observation and theory development.
References
- Bassler, B. L., & Losick, R. (2006). Bacterially speaking. Cell, 125(2), 237–246. [CrossRef]
- Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48(8), 696–702. [CrossRef]
- Chiribella, G., D’Ariano, G. M., & Perinotti, P. (2010). Probabilistic theories with purification. Physical Review A, 81(6), 062348. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1583. [CrossRef]
- Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2011). Info-Computational Philosophy of Nature: An Informational Universe With Computational Dynamics. In: Thellefsen, T., Sørensen, B. and Cobley, P. (Eds.), From First to Third via Cybersemiotics, the Festschrift for Prof. Søren Brier. CBS Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 97.
- Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2016). Information, Computation, Cognition. Agency-Based Hierarchies of Levels. In: Müller, V.C. (Ed.) Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Synthese Library, vol 376. Springer, Cham. [CrossRef]
- Dodig-Crnkovic, G., & von Haugwitz, R. (2017). Reality Construction in Cognitive Agents Through Processes of Info-computation. In: Dodig-Crnkovic, G., Giovagnoli, R. (Eds.), Representation and Reality in Humans, Other Living Organisms and Intelligent Machines. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 28. Springer, Cham. [CrossRef]
- Einstein, A. (1905). On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891–921. (Original work published in German).
- Einstein, A. (1915). The field equations of gravitation. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 844–847. (Original work published in German).
- Fields, C. (2012). If physics is an information science, what is an observer? Information, 3(1), 92–123. [CrossRef]
- Fields, C. (2014). Building the observer into the system. Systems, 2(1), 1–21. [CrossRef]
- Fingelkurts, A. A., & Fingelkurts, A. A. (2006). Timing in cognition and EEG brain dynamics: Discreteness versus continuity. Cognitive Processing, 7(3), 135–162. [CrossRef]
- Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2013). Quantum-Bayesian coherence. Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(4), 1693–1715. [CrossRef]
- Gilmer, J., Schoenholz, S. S., Riley, P. F., Vinyals, O., & Dahl, G. E. (2017). Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 70:1263–1272. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/gilmer17a.html.
- Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
- Hardy, L. (2011). Reformulating and reconstructing quantum theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1104.2066.
- Harré, R. (1970). The Principles of Scientific Thinking. Macmillan.
- Heisenberg, W. (1927). The physical content of quantum kinematics and mechanics. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3–4), 172–198.
- Helland, I. S. (2021). Epistemic Processes: A Basis for Statistics and Quantum Theory. Springer. [CrossRef]
- Hendry, R. F. (2006). Chemistry. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (pp. 242–253). Routledge.
- Höhn, P. A. (2019). Switching internal times and a new perspective on the “wave function of the universe.” Universe, 5(5), 116. [CrossRef]
- Hordijk, W., & Steel, M. (2010). Detecting autocatalytic, self-sustaining sets in chemical reaction systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 263(4), 491–498. [CrossRef]
- Kant, I. (1781/1998). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).
- Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press.
- Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(12), 712–719. [CrossRef]
- Lehn, J.-M. (1995). Supramolecular Chemistry: Concepts and Perspectives. Wiley-VCH.
- Leifer, M. S., & Spekkens, R. W. (2014). Towards a formulation of quantum theory as a causally neutral theory of Bayesian inference. Physical Review A, 88(5), 052130. [CrossRef]
- Lovelock, J. E., & Margulis, L. (1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis. Tellus, 26(1–2), 2–10.
- Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.
- Lundqvist, M., & Wutz, A. (2022). New methods for oscillation analyses push new theories of discrete cognition. Psychophysiology, 59(3), e13827. [CrossRef]
- Massimi, M. (2022). Perspectival Realism. Oxford University Press. [CrossRef]
- Maturana, H. R. (1988). Ontology of the observer. Conference Workbook: Stanford University.
- Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. W. H. Freeman.
- Müller, M. P. (2020). Law without law: From observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.01742. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.01742. [CrossRef]
- Pöppel, E. (1994). Temporal Mechanisms in Perception. International Review of Neurobiology, 37, 185–202.
- Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8), 1637–1678. [CrossRef]
- Rovelli, C. (1997). Halfway through the woods: Contemporary research on space and time. In J. Earman & J. Norton (Eds.), The cosmos of science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Rovelli, C. (2021). Helgoland: Making sense of the quantum revolution. Penguin Books.
- Scerri, E. R. (2012). Philosophy of Chemistry: Growth of a New Discipline. Springer.
- Tyson, J. J. (1989). Oscillations, bistability and chaos in physiological control systems. In L. Glass, M. Mackey, & A. Goldbeter (Eds.), Biological Oscillations and Chemical Reaction Kinetics (pp. 3–24). Springer.
- VanRullen, R. (2016). Perceptual cycles. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(10), 723–735. [CrossRef]
- Von Baeyer, H. C. (2016). QBism: The Future of Quantum Physics. Harvard University Press.
- von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. New York: Springer.
- von Weizsäcker, C. F. (1985/2006). The Structure of Physics. Springer Dordrecht. [CrossRef]
- Wheeler, J. A. (1990). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. In W. H. Zurek (Ed.), Complexity, entropy and the physics of information (pp. 3–28). Addison-Wesley.
- Wolfram, S. (2023, December 11). Observer Theory. Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
