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?
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.