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?
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.
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.
That helps clarify your position—thank you.
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that mathematics itself constitutes an objective reality, and that our access to it is not dependent on subjective observation.
What I’m still trying to understand is this:
what would it mean, concretely, for access to occur “nonsubjectively”?
Even when engaging with mathematics, it seems that any recognition, manipulation, or understanding still takes place through some form of subject.
So I’m wondering whether the question is not just about whether something is objective, but about whether the very notion of “access” can ever be separated from the structure of subjectivity in the first place.
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.
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.
Thanks for clearing me up. Ok that’s interesting. And does very much speak to OP
I can immediately grasp a major support of the position, in that principia mathematica are self - evident/supporting/emerging (ie axioms and theorums), so yeah thats pretty strong reality.
But…
Im a way, doesn’t the nature of a “pure mathematics reality” indeed sit apart from “our” reality, like (how) can it exist (in some way) without a world?
So IS that strong support for a type of dualism?
Is the old joke “God exists and he is a mathematician” valid in that respect?
I wouldn’t say dualism, since dualism typically precludes more than two possibilities.
I’m going to leave theology alone at this time, but feel free to opine and I might chime in later!
That helps clarify your position—thank you.
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that mathematics itself constitutes an objective reality, and that our access to it is not dependent on subjective observation.
What I’m still trying to understand is this:
what would it mean, concretely, for access to occur “nonsubjectively”?
Even when engaging with mathematics, it seems that any recognition, manipulation, or understanding still takes place through some form of subject.
So I’m wondering whether the question is not just about whether something is objective, but about whether the very notion of “access” can ever be separated from the structure of subjectivity in the first place.