What is 'objective reality'?

To be absolutely honest with you, I did not intend this discussion to start moving toward the discussion of the existence of God or gods, but rather toward anything that is conceived of and thought to exist but not having found any material (tangible) evidence to support such supposition as that existence of the thing. As a further example.. the notion of a multiverse... what is truly KNOWN about a multiverse that would allow people to conclude that one exists? Concept, notion, ideology, mathematical computations, wishful thinking?

 

Until recently on this forum I hadn't heard about multiverse either. But I say why not. I would base it on math and statistics. For the same reason I think we are not the only planet with intelligent life. The odds are so that it is almost impossible for there not to be another earth type planet or more.

 

That would constitute a leap of faith. Faith in mathematics and faith in the men and women working the manipulation of those numbers. That would almost appear as a belief system. Do you also have confidence in the IRS when they send you a tax bill at the end of the year? (presuming you are a US citizen and not on the list of exempt citizens). Based on your signature line, I would venture to guess that you don't have such confidence in the numbers generated by government officials. So why should the numbers generated by another special interest group have any greater credibility?

 

Objective reality is defined as the way things are.

Objective signifies the simple facts with no values ascribed to them. So when I point to a rock and say "thats a rock." I state an objective fact. If I go on to describe the rock as big or small, hard or soft, light or heavy, I am using subjective terms.

All values are subjective in nature. The less value ascribed to anything the more objective it is. Essential objective qualities are shapes, colors (though we each have a subjective ability to sense them), and measurements. Isolated events are most often seen as objective in nature, but can only be translated in subjective language So I could objectively say that a rock fell and hit me on the head despite the fact that "falling" and "hitting" are arguably subjective terms.

I guess this is the most boring answer you have gotten so far. In my opinion though everyone has an innate sense of the objective truth or we wouldn't be able to walk across a room without killing ourselves.

 

I have faith in math because I've seen it and I've seen it work. Everything is a belief system, but you look at the odds, do some mumbo jumbo math, a little hocus pocus logic and poof. You come up with a belief system.
Scientists aren't the gov't.

 

Well at least you are making a showing of what I was inferring. No! Scientists are not necessarily the government, however the scientists and their lab facilities get a lot of support by the government(s). Therefore, the scientists have to keep things politically correct in order to maintain that lucrative position with regard to the government(s).

 

Anyway: Getting back to the topic of the thread. does anyone have a definition that cannot be refuted and is absolute for the phrase "Objective reality"?

If none can be found or formulated, then why do some people on this forum place such a leaning and dependence upon a subject that cannot be adequately defined so as to meet the needs of all people concerned when confronted with that phrase?

 

Hello Science majors and science supporters... what is 'objective reality'?

 

Objective reality is when lawyers object to reality a lot.

 

That part seems all wrong to me.

1.) a probability matrix cannot exist absent observation because it is precisely the observer that builds the probability matrix. A probability matrix is a system formulated to make a sensible model of what the observer observes. The observer demonstrates an intent to exploit this information in some way, and creates the matrix because he sees potential value in the information.

2.) Quantum Mechanics does not demonstrate that observation "causes" reality. It may say the opposite. If a quantum particle has an 80% chance to do A, and a 20% chance to do B, the observer can see whether it does A or B. But the observer cannot say "why" it does A or B. There is incomplete knowledge here to justify a claim that the observer "caused" the probability of A or B. You can posit an "ultimate observer" that "caused" the nature of the particle to do A or B, because an ultimate observer would have the complete knowledge necessary to claim that observation causes reality, but I don't think that is what you were going for.

This example isn't quite accurate enough to back up your Quantum argument. Dead trees can be observed and experienced more comprehensively than quantum particles, and therefore can be integrated into our intuition. We can make far better distinctions about the existence of a dead tree than we can with a boson because we have a deeper clarity of it, and it isn't just based on a mathematical abstraction.

Through induction we can infer a probability matrix that if we have sufficient instances, already reliably observed, then we can make a probability matrix that gives us confidence to conclude that in any general dead forest, a dead tree will fall, and make a sound. If we want to ask if a particular tree fell in a particular forest and made a particular sound, then you're going to need a great deal more data and/or experience to infer with the same level of confidence that we had in the first example.

 

Objective reality in the conventional scientific term is anything with a "simple location", anything you can actually or figuratively put your finger on. Anything you can see with your senses (or extensions of them). Something that can be perceived or validated from a third person perspective, and can be put into "it" or "it's" language.... physical objects, the brain, sub-atomic particles, the ionosphere, a colony of ants, quasars, the circulatory system, radio waves, etc.. all are "Objective Reality".

It's important to note, that in many occasions Objective Reality is meant to infer the reality of the physical world, before interpreted through observation/perception. Any scientific interpretation unavoidably 'contaminates' any theoretical objective "intrinsic features" of the universe. Science itself is a subjective interpretative approach to reality, even the most initiated scientist and physicists concede this point and this is effectively a philosophical non-issue now.

Basically Science can never "know" objective reality. it can study objective reality, but any interpretation will not be objective. This is not to say objective reality does not exist, there are "intrinsic features" that allow science to make real progress, but interpretation itself, by a subjective scientist irreversibly destroys any objectivity.

The real mistake occurs when someone tries to equate Scientific Objective Reality with Reality itself, "True Reality" or the only Reality that's "real". This is a tragic error that ignores or reduces the Subjective Reality of consciousness/awareness, thoughts, feelings, emotion, concepts, dreams, analytical insights, causal meditative states, contemplative breakthroughs, nondual realizations, etc... and reduce them to their physical correlations (usually in the brain such as chemical exchange, axon/dendrite communication, synaptic impulses, cerebral blood flow, electrical patterning, etc..but this is not a description of any interior subjective experiences of any kind like despondency, tranquility, anger, craving, etc... those do nothing to reflect their experiential reality. Even the idea of Scientific Reductionism of the reality of interior phenomenon to exterior objects itself is a subjective claim.

In the philosophical sense the only thing that I can objectively say without any uncertainty is that "I Am Aware", right now. I could be in a dream, but I know I am aware...that cannot be reduced. To take it a step further I can leave it only to "Awareness Is", there's not even a necessity of an I within Awareness...That is the only certainty in the ever-changing realm of apparent reality because that is the unchanging Absolute Reality itself. Awareness is existence and can be experientialy realized as such.

Descartes came to the former conclusion when he stated "Cogito Ergo Sum" ... "I think, therefore I am." Though i read somewhere that the reverse rings truer..."I am, Therefore I think."

 

My preference... as it identifies that which I seek.

 

Nope that's wrong. You can't say that with uncertainty. Because in your next sentence you'll say that "Awareness" doesn't need an "I". That "I" is "You". "You" can't claim to know that "you" (I) are Aware, without any uncertainty, and claim that your Awareness doesn't need "I" (You). That's paradoxical. Unless you're really saying that "you" (I) is Aware with uncertainty.

Your distinction is between the 'apparent' and 'absolute' reality (which you've oddly labeled as a proper noun, I don't see the connection), but you've not clearly resolved why one is "ever-changing" and the other is "unchanging"; nor given a good justification for either one since you've not even resolved your own tautologies.

 

Subjective reality is an internal mental construct representing that which an individual observer senses through vision, hearing, taste, smell and feel.

Objective reality is that which the observer has observed in order to form their internalized mental construct of subjective reality.

Fantasy is a subjective reality that does not accurately correspond to the observation of objective reality.

 

Thats complete BULSH...and, an outright lie.

 

Well said and quite true. I have only posted here for a while and the only poster I put on ignore is the top poster.

 

I use the ignore button in my own head for quite a few of the members here.

I have found though that using the forum option creates more problems than it solves. It robs me of the ability to understand the discussion going on if even one of the people is on ignore. Consensus in a discussion depends on all the views expressed, even, and sometimes especially, the rejected ones.

The only person I ever put on ignore continually created threads and posted anti semitic sentiments. They had the craziest most myopic view of reality I have ever witnessed; any and every bad thing had one cause in their view. However, once I put them on ignore none of the discussions they were involved in made any sense.

So I took them off ignore. Instead I completely ignored their threads by simply not reading them, and though I would read their post to establish context I never replied to them directly.

Many of the members here that I disagree with create very good threads. If I notice their post becoming pointlessly argumentative I usually don't reply to them, but I do post with the others involved in the discussion who are still using reason.

Your choice though. I just think the ignore option hurts the person using it more than the person ignored.

 

Very accurate....I suppose I need to work on my mental ignore ability, and ability to brush off ignorance.

 

The vast majority of top posts on this forum are little more than hyper-partisan, thoughtless rants. I tend to avoid responding to those. Fortunately, the membership here is large enough to occasionally provide for an interesting discussion. It's not as if the wheat to chaff ratio is any better on any of the other public forum sites, from what I've experienced.

 

I have been on too many boards for too many years to feel that I am missing something important I have never heard before countless times. I waste time on these things for amusement purposes only. After enough time, you end up hearing the same tired arguments repeatedly. Occasionally you will find a thread with serious posters who are engaged and knowledgeable. I rarely find them on the right though but I am surprised once in a while which gives me some measure of hope that the right wing in America can have some role to play or relevance in the future. Most of the posters on the left seem to know their material and grasp the essential complexities of life. This particular poster plays games with himself likely to keep amused. Much like the child who keeps asking why, the tactic gets boring very quickly.

 

Are you calling me a liar? What is the definition of "BULSH..."?

 

You might want to check out that last statement you made by asking yourself this question: What is the 'observation'?

 

An example of Objective reality would be the results of an experiment that are repeatable and always given the same result.

One example would be the freezing point of water. Given the same experimental conditions water will always freeze at the same temperature regardless of who is conducting the experiment.

This is "objective reality" as the perception of the observer is irrelevant to the result. Every observer will realize the same result within a margin of experimental error.

 

The last highlighted clause contradicts the first highlighted clause. "within a margin of experimental error" is not the equivalent of "water will always freeze at the same temperature."

 

Its not so much missing something important that the person you are ignoring is stating, its missing the context of the conversation going on. Of course if you aren't too concerned about missing a thing or two, I see your point.

My biggest frustration is watching people get into bizarre arguments over minor points. I am willing to concede when someone disproves or shows the irrelevancy of any given point I might make. If I still think I am essentially correct, or that I have a valid reframing of the issue, I simply amend my argument to account for the mistake. At that point either the person doggedly keeps repeating the point where they made a minor victory, or the debate moves forward.

This is not the debate style usually found here. Here when some one has a point disproved they doggedly stick with it to the point of suggesting that objective reality does not exist. Because if there is absolutely no reality beyond our own minds then how can we possibly hope to prove anything?