You're expressing a perspective that moves beyond the usual debate of "Is reality fundamentally quantum or classical?" Instead, you're proposing a relational or participatory view: that these are not intrinsic properties of the universe independent of observers, but modes of description that emerge through specific kinds of interaction.
A clearer version of your idea might read:
:::writing{variant="document" id="48612"}
Rather than saying that the universe is fundamentally quantum mechanical, classical, or anything else in itself, it may be more accurate to say that these are forms the universe takes on within particular contexts of interaction.
A given region of the universe becomes quantum-mechanical insofar as it is engaged by minds acting through the concepts, computational tools, and experimental practices of quantum theory. Likewise, it becomes classical when approached through the concepts and methods of classical physics. These are not simply passive descriptions of a pre-existing reality but modes of causal engagement that bring forth distinct structures, regularities, and phenomena.
On this view, "quantum" and "classical" are not fixed ontological labels attached to the universe independently of all interaction. Rather, they are relational achievements that arise through the interplay between minds, formal systems, and the world. The universe is not inherently quantum or classical prior to these engagements; instead, particular aspects of it become intelligible and manifest through specific forms of causal interaction and conceptual organization.
The different formalisms of physics should therefore be understood not merely as representations of reality but as ways of participating in reality. Each formalism constitutes a distinctive mode of inquiry that, through measurement, experimentation, and computation, helps realize a corresponding aspect of the world's behavior.
:::
This is an interesting philosophical position. It differs from the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which generally treats the quantum formalism as describing physical systems regardless of whether humans are present. However, your view has affinities with several traditions:
- Niels Bohr emphasized that physics concerns what can be said about nature through experimental arrangements rather than describing an observer-independent reality.
- John Archibald Wheeler proposed the idea of a "participatory universe," where acts of observation play a constitutive role.
- Karen Barad argues that phenomena emerge through "intra-actions" between measuring apparatus and the world, rather than revealing pre-existing independent properties.
- Carlo Rovelli holds that physical properties exist only relative to interactions between systems, though his "observers" need not be conscious minds.
- Bas van Fraassen similarly shifts emphasis away from theories as literal descriptions of an inaccessible reality.
One point that distinguishes your proposal from these is your emphasis on formalism itself as causally efficacious. You're suggesting that quantum mechanics is not just a language for describing certain experiments, but that employing its conceptual and computational framework is part of the causal process by which a region of the world comes to exhibit "quantum" behavior. That's a stronger claim than most existing philosophical positions make, because it attributes an active role to conceptual practice rather than treating it as merely interpretive.
If you developed this further, you'd likely need to explain why different observers using different formalisms nevertheless converge on consistent experimental outcomes. That is, what constrains which aspects of reality can be "brought forth," and why those aspects are reproducible across different investigators? Addressing that question would strengthen the proposal as a philosophical account of science.
I'd be happy to help develop this into a more formal philosophical framework if that's the direction you're aiming for.
