Many people here seem to share an implicit assumption: that there exists an objective reality independent of observation, and that this reality is fundamentally stable and absolute.

I’m not trying to deny that assumption. But I’d like to ask something more specific:

If reality is truly independent and absolute, how do we account for the fact that every access to it is mediated through a subject?

In other words, is what we call “objective reality” something that exists prior to all observation, or is it something that only becomes coherent through the intersection of perspectives?

Not asking for agreement—just curious how far this assumption can be pushed before it starts to shift.

If all we ever have is access through observation, what would it even mean for a reality to exist completely independent of any subject?

  • LeonineAlpha@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    2 days ago

    While I like OPs OQ allowing existence of objective reality,

    As far as I am aware (please prove me wrong) there is not any “philosophical proof” of such.

    Most philosophy claiming such either takes it, or required axioms, a-priori or uses chains of logic that absolutely require unproven/unprovable claims.

    Often ascociated/required/requiring dualism, which also has serious “proof” issues.

    As with the OPs OQ, I would like it if those claiming an absolute position provide reasoning, because frankly, I think it might be a cultural/biological delusion, ironically resulting from the inescapable nature of mediation by the subject (self).

    • LeonineAlpha@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      2 days ago

      I will also “bite” with a my attempt at a philosophical answer to OP

      Short answer: No

      Why?

      ?What is a game?

      !Disproved Plato’s Pure Forms!

      (and over 2 millenia of western philosophical thinking based on that crap (essential to most dualism), that even many of P’s students wisely wouldn’t buy, back in the day)

      Is a game… Collaborative or Competative Fun or serious Rules absolute or negotiable Etc etc

      While this is an extreme case, its a problem for some aspects of many/most/all relevant observational schemas

      Clearly there is no “ideal” game definition, and thus can never be an “absolute” agreement as to what is or isn’t ABSOLUTELY a game.

      However, for a given sub-culture (of similar biological and experienced beings) there can indeed be quite extensive agreement, and only a few debates, as to what is a game.

      So, for now, I will take this position to OPs OQ.

      That we will not be finding an objective reality, that any such schema will have problems, but in as much as there is close alignment of observers, there indeed tends to be sufficient agreement regarding many things, that a subjective experience imperfectly becomes a shared reality.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    2·
    2 days ago

    If all we ever have is access through observation, what would it even mean for a reality to exist completely independent of any subject?

    But that’s not all we have. We also have higher mathematics.

    • Laura@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      Do you mean that mathematics provides a way to understand or describe an objective reality?

      If so, I think my question is slightly different— I’m asking about the very basis on which that “objective reality” is said to exist in the first place.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
        2·
        2 days ago

        Yes, that’s what I mean. And the basis is in the math itself: We can make observations about mathematics, just like physical reality; but we can also interact with mathematics directly, and they’re the same every time for everyone all the time, not relying on subjective observation.

        • LeonineAlpha@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 days ago

          Yes, but

          The “actual” mathematics (in as much as we can verify our models through scientific experimentation)

          are “absolutely subjective” in that (for instance)

          At large scale, relativity effects are so great as to make order and locations of events subordinate to an observers reference frame

          And at small scale, (example again) Uncertainty Principle makes events “fuzzy” ie (somewhat) indeterminate.

          Now in both those cases, yes we have the mathematics “down” so hypothetically we can acount what an individual observer may “see” but

          Practically speaking, a total accounting of this would seemingly require a computer more complex than the universe itself.

          • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
            1·
            2 days ago

            I can see I wasn’t clear. I don’t mean mathematics is a way to interact with physical reality in a non-subjective way. I mean mathematics is unto itself an objective reality, independent of physical reality, which we can access nonsubjectively.