
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).











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.