The Fluid Nature of Reality: Cubism, QBism & the Observer’s Role

Reality. For centuries, we’ve tried to define it, to pin it down to a singular truth. But what if reality is not fixed? What if it depends on how we look at it—who’s looking?

The interplay between Cubism, QBism, and the observer’s role in shaping reality invites profound philosophical, scientific, and artistic contemplation. While this synthesis presents a compelling argument for the fluidity and subjectivity of reality, it also highlights a critical concern: the absence of scope of when to apply clear boundaries & scope within this framework.

This lack of definitional rigor risks undermining the coherence and applicability of the arguments themselves, particularly when addressing the nature of reality in multidisciplinary contexts.

In this context, fluidity refers to the capacity of reality to adapt, change, or be perceived differently depending on the observer’s perspective, frame of reference, or interpretive framework. It challenges the notion of a fixed, singular, or objective reality and instead suggests that reality is dynamic, relational, and influenced by interactions between the observer and the observed.

Key Characteristics of Fluidity in This Context:

1. Subjective Dependence: Reality is not absolute but contingent upon the observer’s perception, choices, or epistemic tools.

2. Relational Dynamics: The nature of reality emerges from relationships—between the observer and phenomena (as in QBism), or between fragmented perspectives (as in Cubism).

3. Multiplicity: Fluidity acknowledges multiple coexisting truths or interpretations, resisting reduction to a singular, definitive narrative.

4. Evolving Boundaries: Reality’s definition or scope shifts as new perspectives or methods of interpretation arise, reflecting its non-static nature.

Thus, fluidity embodies the idea that reality is shaped by a continuous interplay of subjective, interpretive, and contextual factors, making it inherently adaptable but also challenging to define or pin down.

The Problem of Vagueness & Infinite Regress

Both Cubism and QBism challenge classical notions of objective reality by emphasising subjectivity. In Cubism, the fragmentation of perspective underscores the inability to fully capture a singular truth, while QBism frames quantum mechanics as a tool for personal belief updates rather than an ontological map of the universe.

Within the context of fluidity in reality as explored through Cubism, QBism, and the observer’s role, continuums and infinite regress emerge as both conceptual tools and philosophical challenges. These notions help frame the dynamic, relational, and observer-dependent nature of reality while also revealing potential pitfalls of the framework’s inherent fluidity.

If reality allows for multiple interpretations, how can we determine the threshold at which an interpretation ceases to provide reliable explanatory or predictive power? As Thomas S. Kuhn explores in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientific paradigms often shift when existing interpretations no longer adequately explain observations or predict outcomes, demonstrating that explanatory power is a critical measure for the validity of an interpretation.

Continuums in the Context of Fluidity

A continuum implies a seamless range or spectrum between two extremes, without discrete boundaries. In the fluid reality framework:

1. Observer and Observed: The continuum reflects the interplay between the observer and the phenomenon, blurring the line between subjective perception and objective existence. For instance, in QBism, the reality of quantum systems exists not independently but as part of the probabilistic beliefs held by the observer.

2. Interpretation of Reality: Cubism suggests a continuum of perspectives, where each angle contributes to the holistic, multifaceted understanding of an object. The lack of fixed boundaries means every interpretation has validity within its context.

3. Blending Frameworks: The fluidity posited by QBism and Cubism suggests that disciplines like physics, art, and philosophy operate on a continuum, overlapping and enriching each other’s insights.

Although continuums offer valuable flexibility in understanding complex phenomena, their lack of clear demarcations can obscure critical distinctions necessary for rigorous analysis. For instance, the boundary between subjective influence—shaped by individual perspectives, emotions, and biases—and objective truth—understood as propositions independent of individual perspectives and rooted in logical or empirical coherence—remains a persistent epistemological challenge. However, the introduction of fact—typically defined as an observable and verifiable reality—complicates this boundary further, particularly in the context of UK law, where facts are often separated from their interpretations but still influence determinations of truth and justice.

Philosophically, Thomas Nagel underscores the value of objectivity, arguing that ‘objectivity requires a view from nowhere,’ a perspective free from subjective distortions (Nagel, 1986). Yet, as Hilary Putnam contends, even seemingly factual truths are mediated by conceptual schemes, asserting that ‘facts and values are entangled,’ making it impossible to fully extricate observation from interpretation (Putnam, 1981). This interplay raises important questions: Is truth merely an interpretation of fact, or does it exist independently as an abstract ideal?

In law, this distinction becomes particularly salient. Facts are presented as evidence, but their legal significance depends on interpretative frameworks. For example, in criminal cases, subjective assessments of intent (mens rea) must be reconciled with objectively verifiable facts to establish guilt. In R v Cunningham [1957], the defendant’s subjective state of mind (recklessness) was inferred from factual evidence of his actions, illustrating the law’s attempt to navigate between subjective influence and factual reality. Conversely, the principle of negligence, as established in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. [1856], relies on an objective standard, where facts are assessed against the hypothetical ‘reasonable person.’ As Lord Alderson noted, negligence involves ‘the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do,’ framing fact within the context of collective social expectations.

This tension is further complicated by Hart and Honoré in Causation in the Law, who argue that ‘facts do not speak for themselves in law; their significance is derived from normative frameworks,’ such as causation and responsibility. Thus, while facts are presented as objective entities, their interpretation in both philosophy and law often involves a continuum where subjective and objective elements intermingle. This interplay challenges the pursuit of clarity and underscores the inherent complexity of distinguishing between fact, truth, and interpretation within both intellectual and legal domains.

Legal Perspective

In legal practice, facts and values are often treated as distinct entities during the adjudication process. Facts are established through evidence and testimony, while values inform the interpretation of those facts within the framework of justice. For example, in a criminal trial, the fact that a defendant was present at a crime scene may be determined independently of any moral evaluation of their actions. As Lord Denning noted in Hinchliffe v. Secretary of State for Education and Science [1986], “The court is concerned with the facts of the case as they are, not as they might be valued or judged by others.” While values are crucial for determining sentencing or justice, they remain secondary to the initial establishment of factual truth.

Balancing the Argument

The counterargument does not deny that facts and values often intersect, especially in domains like ethics or sociology, where human interpretation plays a significant role. However, it asserts that maintaining a conceptual boundary between the two is crucial for objectivity. Failure to do so risks conflating empirical truths with normative beliefs, leading to biased conclusions. For example, if scientific research is overly influenced by values (e.g., ideological biases), it undermines the credibility of its findings. Similarly, in legal contexts, conflating facts and values could lead to miscarriages of justice, as decisions would be swayed by subjective considerations rather than objective evidence.

Does the absence of clear boundaries in fluid continua risk collapsing meaningful distinctions into mere gradations, thereby undermining both conceptual precision—the clarity and exactness with which concepts are defined and applied (Nagel, 1986; Putnam, 1981)—and conceptual rigor—the systematic, disciplined application of concepts that ensures logical consistency and validity (Kuhn, 1962; Popper, 2002)?

Infinite Regress in Fluidity

Infinite regress arises when a claim relies on a never-ending sequence of dependencies or explanations. In this context, it appears in several ways:

1. Observer-Dependent Reality: If reality depends on the observer, then we must ask: Who or what observes the observer? This leads to an infinite chain of observers, each influencing the observed reality, making it impossible to anchor a definitive starting point.

2. Relational Dynamics: If reality emerges only through relationships (as in both QBism and Cubism), the question becomes: What is the foundational reality from which relationships arise? This regress challenges the ability to establish any fundamental or “ground” reality.

3. Perspectival Fragmentation: In Cubism, each fragmented perspective contributes to understanding the whole. But if no perspective is primary, one might continually seek additional perspectives without ever arriving at a complete picture.

Concern: Does Infinite regress highlight the risk of possible conceptual collapse. If every definition or reality relies on another ad infinitum, the framework ceases to provide actionable or explanatory value. This can undermine the credibility of the argument and its applicability across disciplines.

Interplay of Continuums & Infinite Regress

Infinite regress presents a significant challenge to conceptual frameworks, particularly in the absence of recorded, measured states and effective context-switching. The problem arises when each definition or reality depends on another ad infinitum, preventing a definitive or self-contained explanation. Without clear boundaries or foundational concepts, frameworks can lose their explanatory or actionable value, reducing their credibility and applicability across disciplines.

The risk of conceptual collapse due to infinite regress is particularly pronounced when frameworks fail to ground their terms and propositions in empirical observations or verifiable facts. Without such anchors, any argument or system of thought could spiral into abstraction, with each concept requiring a further explanation that never reaches a conclusive or practical outcome. This is why empirical measurement and context-switching are crucial for maintaining the robustness and applicability of a theoretical framework.

Empirical Foundations and Measured States

Recorded and measured states—empirical data or observable phenomena—serve as necessary touchstones that prevent infinite regress from undermining conceptual rigor. In the philosophy of science, Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability highlights that theories must be testable against empirical evidence to remain grounded in reality. For example, in quantum mechanics, the use of experimental data, such as particle collisions in accelerators, provides the necessary empirical grounding for abstract theories like quantum entanglement and wave-particle duality. These data points serve as critical boundaries for theoretical exploration, preventing an endless chain of speculative hypotheses.

In law, similarly, the process of evidence-based adjudication ensures that arguments are anchored in recorded, factual states rather than abstract theories. A prime example can be found in the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials, where the facts (witness testimony, physical evidence) provide a grounding for decisions. Without these recorded states, legal arguments would risk collapsing into an infinite regress of competing interpretations with no objective means to resolve them.

Context-Switching in Complex Frameworks

Effective context-switching—the ability to apply or adapt conceptual frameworks across different domains or situations—ensures that definitions and concepts remain applicable and coherent in diverse contexts. One notable example of effective context-switching can be found in machine learning algorithms, where models trained in one context (e.g., identifying objects in images) can be adapted and applied to other contexts (e.g., autonomous driving) without losing their explanatory power. However, this requires a clear, consistent foundation of algorithms and data, preventing the system from spiraling into unresolvable regressions where each context requires a completely new definition or model.

In law, context-switching is illustrated by precedent-based reasoning, where legal decisions must balance previous rulings with the specific facts of a current case. This system maintains conceptual rigor by applying established legal principles (recorded facts and rulings) while allowing for adaptation in different legal contexts, preventing an infinite regress of interpretations.

The absence of clear boundaries or empirical grounding in conceptual frameworks, when coupled with infinite regress, can lead to a collapse of actionable or explanatory value. However, through empirical measurements and effective context-switching, frameworks can remain robust and applicable. In fields such as quantum physics, law, and machine learning, the integration of recorded states and contextual adaptation has enabled practical solutions while maintaining conceptual clarity and rigor, effectively mitigating the risk of infinite regress.

The continuum suggests that reality is fluid, existing as a spectrum shaped by subjective and relational dynamics. Infinite regress, however, exposes the challenges of fluidity, particularly the difficulty of establishing a coherent foundation or clear boundaries.

Together, these concepts illustrate the tension within the fluidity framework:

• Continuums enable flexibility, allowing reality to be interpreted dynamically and inclusively.

• Infinite regress demands a stopping point, a foundational element or principle to prevent endless recursion and maintain coherence.

Addressing the Challenges

To reconcile these issues, the framework of fluidity must incorporate constraints.

1. Contextual Anchors: Establishing provisional boundaries or reference points—such as shared empirical data in QBism or cultural consensus in Cubism—can prevent infinite regress.

2. Scoped Continuums: Defining the domains within which the continuum operates (e.g., personal beliefs in QBism versus artistic interpretations in Cubism) can balance fluidity with practical applicability.

3. Meta-Perspective: Developing a meta-framework that acknowledges both fluidity and the necessity of limits, much like a Hilbert space constrains quantum states within well-defined mathematical boundaries.

By recognising the contributions and challenges of continuums and infinite regress, the concept of fluid reality can be refined into a more robust and actionable paradigm.

Without boundaries, the argument risks devolving into an infinite regress: if reality is always dependent on an observer, who observes the observer?

This question, echoing Gödelian recursion, complicates the establishment of a foundational framework. Furthermore, this ambiguity threatens to render the concept of reality unfalsifiable, an essential criterion in scientific inquiry (Popper, 1959).

Challenges in Operationalising Observer-Dependent Realities

While both QBism and Cubism allow for a more flexible understanding of reality, their frameworks are difficult to operationalise in empirical research.

For instance, QBism’s probabilistic approach depends on subjective experiences and Bayesian inference, which are inherently non-replicable across different observers (Fuchs, 2010).

Similarly, Cubism’s fragmented perspectives defy standardisation, making it challenging to apply systematically outside of artistic contexts.

Without clear scope or parameters, interdisciplinary discourse becomes problematic.

What methodologies or epistemologies should be prioritised when exploring reality?

If boundaries are undefined, how can Cubism or QBism reliably inform disciplines such as neuroscience, artificial intelligence, or metaphysics? The lack of a unifying principle leaves these frameworks vulnerable to critique from more rigid paradigms.

Implications for Epistemology and Ethics

The absence of boundaries raises not only epistemological issues but also ethical concerns. For instance, if reality is entirely observer-dependent, what happens to the idea of shared truths necessary for social contracts and ethical decision-making?

This relativistic stance could inadvertently support solipsism, undermining collective efforts to address global challenges such as climate change, which demand consensus on shared realities.

Mathematical and Conceptual Imprecision

QBism’s reliance on Bayesian probability can illustrate the potential pitfalls of imprecision. Mathematically, Bayesian updates require clear priors and well-defined systems to function effectively (Schlosshauer, 2005).

However, in a reality without fixed boundaries, the definition of priors becomes arbitrary, introducing circularity. Similarly, Cubist interpretations of reality fail to provide a metric for evaluating competing perspectives, which could lead to conceptual inconsistency or incoherence.

Conclusion

The absence of clear boundaries and scope within the discourse on Cubism, QBism, and the observer’s role in shaping reality poses significant challenges. While these frameworks enrich our understanding of reality’s complexity, their utility is diminished if their inherent fluidity is left unchecked. By establishing contextual boundaries and integrating these perspectives with existing paradigms, it is possible to harness their strengths without succumbing to vagueness or incoherence.

References:

• Fuchs, C. A. (2010). QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism.

• Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

• Schlosshauer, M. (2005). Decoherence, the Measurement Problem, and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

• Ross, W.D. (1936). Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.

• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

• Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.