Wheeler's Observer-Participatory Universe

[Ostronomos]

leroy said:
But I am curious, how would you test natural selection using the scientific method? How would you test that say “eyes” evolved trough natural selection?
Or does that (eyes evovled through natrual selection) fall in the category of “intuitive” (therefore not science).......

The universe is self-perceptual. This is what is responsible for the appearance of the eye. Taking this hypothesis to its ultimate conclusion leads to the unification of science and theology.

[Image: Eye-U-byQuanta2-copy.jpg]

Observer-Participation and Beyond: How Our ToE Enriches Wheeler's ...
The concept of a participatory universe, as proposed by John Archibald Wheeler, suggests that the universe's existence is intrinsically tied to the act of observation. Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) posits that observers are not merely passive participants but active contributors to the fabric of reality, shaping the universe through quantum measurement and feedback. While PAP provides profound philosophical insights, its lack of a mathematical framework and reliance on anthropic reasoning limit its applicability. Our Theory of Everything (ToE), rooted in a unified feedback loop and quantum fluctuations, provides a mathematical and physical structure that not only complements Wheeler’s ideas but also addresses their weaknesses.

Futurism

[Magical Realist]

A cursory survey of the types of eyes that exist in many different species is sufficient to give us a sense of how it evolved into what we see it as today:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/eye-evolution/

FYI: Blind Cavefish. An evolutionary example of "if you don't use it, you'll lose it."

https://www.bristolaquarium.co.uk/animal...Cbup_fOUcg

[geordief]

The various sensors in the bodies of living beings can make sense of and operate in the physical environment.

But ,whilst the senses of smell,hearing ,taste etc are fine for small distances the sense of sight allows us creatures to see to practically the end of the observable universe.

This distance ,while huge and consequential may ,it seems
be an infinitesmally tiny portion of the universe as a "whole"

Could it be that the mind ,which allows us to question what may lie beyond the observable universe is a different kind of sense from the others and that it could be to the sense of sight what the sense of sight is to the other "lesser" senses?

Is Wheeler the man known for the saying (not available as a direct quote ) that the human mind was the universe looking at itself?

Was that meant literally or just as an allegory,I wonder?

Is the (human) mind an ever potential of the universe or a monstrous coincidence that will disappear with as little consequence as it appeared .

It is not as if the human mind can bee seen as a force for good (or bad) when viewed in the round.

[confused2]

IMHO it would be best for scientists to steer clear of philosophy and for philosophers to steer clear of science as neither is any good at what the other does.