Diagnostic Checklist: Identifying “Observer Mysticism” in Science-Adjacent Writing
This checklist helps identify when metaphysical claims are framed as scientific explanations without providing mechanism, constraint, or falsifiability.
1. Linguistic Signals
1.1 Metaphors Used as Mechanisms
Terms such as collapse, field, resonance, coherence, phase, vibration, or entanglement are used as if they directly explain phenomena rather than illustrate them.
Diagnostic question: Is the term explicitly defined, or is it operating as a vibe?
1.2 Anthropomorphic or Agentive Language for Physical Systems
Examples: “the universe responds”, “the electron decides”, “the field recognises itself”.
Diagnostic question: Would this sentence still make sense without personification?
1.3 Prestige Borrowing
Scientific terms such as Wheeler–DeWitt, quantum vacuum fluctuations, or information is fundamental appear decoratively without their technical constraints.
Diagnostic question: Does the text gain authority purely by mentioning real physics?
2. Missing Technical Commitments
2.1 No Defined Variables
Key terms appear without operational definitions.
Diagnostic question: Could a physicist plug numbers into this model?
2.2 No Causal Direction
Claims that consciousness “shapes,” “interacts with,” or “collapses” matter without specifying mechanism, medium, or constraints.
Diagnostic question: Is it clear what causes what?
2.3 No Failure Conditions
The claims remain true under all possible observations.
Diagnostic question: Could anything in the world make this model false?
2.4 Undefined Coupling Between Domains
Whenever consciousness is said to affect physical systems, the shared variable and interface are not defined.
Diagnostic question: What variable is shared between the two domains, and how is it coupled?
3. Hidden Logical Moves
3.1 Begging the Question (Assuming Identity to Explain Identity)
The explanation requires the very thing it is meant to explain.
Diagnostic question: Does the argument depend on the conclusion already being true?
3.2 Smuggled Metaphysical Commitments
Large metaphysical assumptions appear mid-argument as if they were natural consequences.
Diagnostic question: Is a major assumption inserted without justification?
3.3 Conflation of Metaphor with Mechanism
Similarity is mistaken for causation.
Diagnostic question: Is the argument confusing “X looks like Y” with “X is caused by Y”?
3.4 Reversal of Dependency
Causation is flipped without evidence.
Diagnostic question: Does the explanation reverse cause and effect?
4. Structural Warning Signs
- Grand conclusions drawn from scientific ambiguity
- Narrative smoothness replacing explanatory rigor
- Ethical or spiritual claims treated as physical consequences
- No attempt to anchor concepts in operational terms
5. Five-Question Litmus Test
Ask these for any science-adjacent metaphysical claim:
- What are the variables?
- What causes what?
- What would falsify this?
- What couples the metaphysical claim to the physical system?
- Does the explanation assume what it claims to explain?
If the piece cannot answer even two of these questions, it is likely engaging in observer mysticism rather than explanation.