This is something I’ve been wondering lately:
Can a question—or observation itself—bring reality into being, rather than just reveal it?
A recent paper I came across explores this idea from a scientific angle. It suggests that “reality” might not be fully real until there’s a certain structural correlation between the observer and what is being observed.
That sounds abstract, I know. But in this view, observation isn’t just passive—it helps stabilize what we call reality.
I wrote a short essay (in English) summarizing the idea:
👉 https://medium.com/@takamii26_37/do-questions-create-reality-on-observation-reality-and-the-shape-of-consciousness-7a9a425d2f41
Would love to hear what others think. Does this resonate with any philosophical frameworks you know of?
Thank you for such a thoughtful and sincere comment. I really appreciate the openness of how you approached this.
Just to say upfront, I’m not an academic and I don’t claim any formal or specialized training. Still, I genuinely enjoy having careful, serious conversations with people who are thinking honestly about these questions.
I think your example captures something very real: a question can meaningfully reshape how someone experiences their world, by reorganizing attention, meaning, and interpretation. Once a question is introduced, it can change what stands out and how connections are perceived.
Where I’m still reflecting is on a gentle distinction between how reality is experienced and how facts themselves are constituted. I fully agree that questions can transform the former, and I’m curious how far that transformation should be taken when we talk about reality itself.
In any case, I really value the spirit of your comment — this kind of thoughtful exchange is exactly why I’m here.
I hope you dont mind but Im gonna send in one more response to this!! I would love for you to elaborate further on " -how reality is experienced and how facts themselves are constituted." and " - how far that transformation should be taken when we talk about reality itself. " I am looking forward to reading your paper later on so I can get a better grasp on exactly what your trying to articulate but I am open for a little more explanation if you would so like!!
Facts themselves are composed through social interaction, language, and cultural framework, turning shared meanings into subjective realities. Ultimately, the human experience of reality is an interplay between the physical world around us and the mental and social structures we dictate around it, often resulting in a shared, rather than absolute, truth.
On the note of "- It suggests that “reality” might not be fully real until there’s a certain structural correlation between the observer and what is being observed. " stated in your original post, It makes me think of the schrodinger’s cat - thought experience.
Considering the nature of your original post Im sure your aware of it but for anyone scrolling by reading my comment it was preformed be a physicist, Erwin schrodinger. It was based around quantum superposition (the condition in which a quantum system can exist in multiple states simultaneously) and essentially was used to illustrate that until observed, an object could exists in two states, until we witness it and its forced to a collapse into a single state for the observer.
Back to the original post, The form quantum superposition collapses into is decided by interaction with the external environment (Supposedly, I had to research that one) and the collapse represents the transition from potentiality to actuality, driven by probability rather than determinism. If thats the case most Quantum mechanic’s operates within, I personally can comfortably associate that to the idea of human conception of reality.
Interaction with the environment, a question specifically, can decide how matter collapses in regards to revealing something physically. My final question is what is the true difference between bringing something into reality, and revealing it? There is a probability for all things, no matter how finite, and what evidently becomes represented is shaped by our actions, and our questions.
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate — I really appreciate how thoughtfully you’re engaging with this.
You’re pointing to what I think is the central tension here: the difference between how reality is experienced and how facts themselves are constituted.
I completely agree that questions reorganize experience. They shift attention, interpretation, and meaning. In that sense, a question reshapes the “lived world.” What changes is the structure through which reality is perceived.
But the more difficult question — and the one I’m still thinking through — is whether this reorganization only alters experience, or whether it also participates in the very process by which reality becomes determinate.
What I’m really asking comes down to this. Does a question merely illuminate what is already fixed? Or does it, in some way, participate in selecting or stabilizing one possibility rather than another when things are not yet fully determined?
If it’s the former, then we’re talking about revealing. If it’s the latter, then a question is participating in the process by which reality settles into form.
The distinction may seem subtle, but I think it’s decisive.