What is 'objective reality'?

you are welcome to believe something else.

 

Well of course I am, and I do.

 

So it appears that the membership of this forum cannot provide a definition of the term "objective reality" that is irrefutable, and that will satisfy the comprehensive needs of all persons reading this forum. Yet other discussions continue on with writings about 'reality' as though 'reality' was/is in fact 'objective'. In the meantime,the scientific community continues using presumptions about 'objective reality' as a foundation of the scientific method. I believe it is safe to conclude that the scientific community is satisfied in knowing that they have pulled the wool over the eyes of most of the population of the world by using such presumptions when in fact the scientific community does not elaborate on what precisely is 'objective reality' upon which they base their scientific method. TSK TSK.

 

Im new to this thread, but since philosophy is a hobby of mine I will take a stab at your question. Objective reality is just what it says. It means that the physical world exists independent of your consciousness. Its one of the first things that you learn when you were born when you discover that the world didn't magically disappear and reappear when you blinked your eyes, that it was there all along. Objective reality holds that your consciousness has no bearing on the outside world. Yes your senses tell you what the outside world is and your consciousness tells you how to discover it. You then form abstractions on the conceptual level that allow you to reason.
For instance if I look at a rose and say that rose is red, it may be gray to a colorblind person, but when I say that it is red what I'm really saying is that "the light reflecting from the rose into my eyes displays a color that I know to be red". Either way the rose is what it is.
Saying that consciousness has primacy over existence is easily refutable. If you didn't exist first, how would you be able to be conscious of anything? If the metaphysical world didn't exist first, what would there be to be conscious of?
If you and I see a chair, you say its a work of art, I say its just a chair. Our different perceptions of the object does not alter the existence of the object nor does it change its qualities. As for the argument someone posted about the behavior of certain subatomic particles changing when observed, objective reality still holds true. The natural movement of those particles by mere act of observation does not change their existence. If you and I can agree that those particles do in fact alter their behavior based on whether they are observed or not, we are still making an observation as to the nature of their movement or non-movement and our consciousness did not or could not affect it. i.e. I cant wish it to move or not move.
So my point is that existence takes primacy over consciousness, which holds that objective reality should not really be a term. Reality is reality period. There is no subjective reality.

 

If you look around at the modern world you would notice that the scientific theory being based in objective reality has worked many times over. To think otherwise would be in denial of reality altogether. If not I would be interested in knowing what your 'secret' solution is to defining the existence of the modern world or life on earth. What pseudo reality do you see? What method do you hold to understand the nature of the universe? Please tell us, but remember you are not able to use logic, or reason because those concepts are based in objective reality.

 

First of all.... logic and reason are not based in 'objective reality'. They both are based in subjectivity. No thing can be considered without subjectivity. Secondly I have never proposed that I did know or that I did hold a "secret solution" to defining existence of the modern world or of life on earth. As for there being a "pseudo reality" would imply that there is a true reality. So perhaps you would first like to enlighten all the readers and the scientific community what 'reality' is the 'true' reality. Remember now you cannot use subjectivity in defining reality as that would render a product of the mind and the mind is " The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination."
"sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)adj.1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience."

 

Seemingly no-one wants to make an attempt at rebuttal.

 

Lets try this again. Logic and reason are based in objective reality. Logic is the process of non-contradictory thinking and proving things that can be proved. Reason is what humans use at the conceptual level as a tool for survival. Objective reality IS what exists despite whether you perceive it or not. A rock is a rock, whether you choose to call it a car is up to you, but that wouldn't be logic. Things that exist in reality are self evident and are not subject to you or how you perceive it. Whether my ability to reason or not reason doesn't change reality.
How would two human beings ever be able to solve any problem in your version of reality? If it was as you say, I could fit a square peg in a round hole just by refusing to believe the peg was square. The universe has concretes. Logic applies to what CAN be known and proven.
You ask for proof? What proof do you need other than the world around you? You seem to be certain of everything but certainty. There is a true reality. You cannot escape it. Walk in front of a bus then refuse to acknowledge that there is a bus because it only exists subjectively to someone elses mind and not your own. See what happens. Better yet, I challenge you to prove your theory. Concretes do not need proof.

 

I'm not sure that science is or claims to be based on objective reality. It is based on the interpretation of data we collect using our senses, which we deem theories and presume are correct until disproven by new data. We have developed many tools for detecting increasingly smaller pieces of data, but ultimately these are still subject to our interpretation.

Ultimately, we are limited creatures with limited abilities. Our science reflects that. Any claim to represent objective reality is false - all science can aspire to is describing how certain data fits into our subjective perspective of the world.

 

And as previously pointed out.... thinking is a subjective activity.

Reason is also a product of the mind of man... subsequently ... Subjective.

Without an observer, there is no witness (to give personal testimony) of the thing perceived. With an observer, the observation is categorized and analyzed in the mind of man (the one perceiving the thing).... subsequently ... Subjective.

Then you admit that anyone can call anything by whatever label they desire to place upon that thing. A rock being a rock is merely by agreement of parties attesting to the matter. Subsequently... subjective.

Why is an apple called an apple? Because someone stuck a label upon that object and others agreed to use that label... subsequently... subjective.

The same way it is done in your reality.... by agreement... subsequently... subjectively.

You mean like this?:
You did not specify dimensions of either the square peg or the round hole.

Yes it does... by agreement... people use concrete on a daily basis. Buildings, highways, and all sorts of other structures that are a product of the mind of man. Subjective in their origin and design.

Well, if God cannot be known or proven, then Logic does not apply to the subject of God.

Evidence or argument that will compel (force) my mind to accept the assertion as true.

I am certain that no-one to this date has been able to force my mind to accept an argument they presented or a piece of evidence they presented as true other than those things which I already accept as true.

Show that "true reality" to me.

You cannot describe it without committing such 'reality' to a condition of 'subjectivity'.

If I were to walk in front of a bus, then I would have to have knowledge of that bus and therefore, the bus would not only be a subjective matter to the onlooker, but to me also. Have you attempted that experiment? No? Then why would you want someone else to engage in an experiment that you would refuse to engage in?

On the contrary. It is your theory. You are the one who designed the experiment... therefore you are the one that should conduct the experiment. You are also the one who should give a report on the outcome of that experiment.

 

LOL. So if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound/ There is more to understanding philosophy than talking in circles and trying to be cute. You say that you need proof that objective reality is not real? So I guess we must both agree on what constitutes proof. Or better yet, can you prove that reality is not objective? It seems you have some sort of distorted view of what reality is. If you refuse to acknowledge reality than there is no helping you.

If you were to walk in front of a bus, according to you, you say you would have to have knowledge of that bus. But why would you HAVE to have knowledge of it? If all reality is different for everyone as you say, then you theoretically could cross the street with another person, they see a bus and you see a bicycle.

 

Where did I say that I need proof that "reality is not real"? For that matter where did I say that "reality is real"? My contention is that the scientific method is founded on assumptions. Assumptions are "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition." One of those assumptions is that objective reality is real/true.

Can you prove that 'reality' is objective? .

 

Come on members.... it is not my fault that you might not have realized that the scientific method is based on assumptions....That is: the assumption that objective reality is real even when there is no proof.

 

Direct perception of it is the proof.. what do you want??

 

An explanation of what it is? Not what your perception of it is.

 

I would add that the steps to go from "subjective perception" [or awareness, which are obviously subjective] to the "objective reality" can be based on statistics and experiments.

If 100 different persons measure the length of a table with different instruments it's possible we will get a certain number of different measurements [according to the accuracy of the instruments of measurement and the accuracy of the eyes of the observers ...]. In physics there is a math tech to deal with error and this can allow a researcher to reach a good approximation about the measurement to declare the "exact measurement" [object reality which is, in this case, a "statistical reality"].

 

"a good approximation" cannot equal an "exact measurement". Check the definitions of "approximate" and "exact". Also, the term 'statistical' is another adjective that is different than 'objective'.

 

There is also the subjective interpretation of "objective" to consider ...

are you familiar with quantum mechanics?

In other words ... "objective reality" is a mind abstraction.

I make a mundane example:

gravity is a measurable force connected with involved masses and the distances between [among] them.

This generates a measurement of force and a measurement of weight [weight exists where there is gravity, without gravity there is only ground mass].

We say ... that table weights 20kg. 20kg??? What are 20kg??? why not 40 lbs?

Which is the "objective reality"? That the table weights 20kg ... or that the table weights 40 lbs?

[note: I use approximated conversions just to make the matter evident].

 

Yes there is the subjective interpretation of 'objective'. In fact there is the 'subjective interpretation' of the 'subjective interpretation. So what?
I have no formal education in quantum mechanics. Does that have anything to do with the meaning of or the explanation of 'objective reality'?

So is quantum mechanics. So what is your point?

They are all fictions of the mind.

That they all weigh any amount, are also fictions of the mind (interpretations, subjectivity at work).

That is not an issue as even if you used some mathematical calculations, they would also amount to subjective representations.

 

The point in quantum mechanics which is relevant to this discussion is that it's physically more and more impossible to know with absolute accuracy the whole matrix of data referred to an object in inverse relation with its dimensions.

An other point in quantum mechanics is that, in case of very little objects, the observers, just observing, changes the observed object.

These two points makes it substantially impossible to know "The Reality", we will know a perception of the reality. Objective? In the limit of the method we use to calculate the statistical errors in measurements.

To make it clear:

if we want to measure the speed, the mass and the position in a time T1 of a particle, let's say a proton [P] we will have to use something, at least we will have to observe the interaction of this traveling proton with something [as it happens in a bubble chamber]. AH! The proton interact, so that it's influenced by nuclear forces, electromagnetic fields [the proton carries a charge] ... so we are not observing the proton "as is", but as it becomes while it's object of our observation.

We can calculate these "changes" in the behavior of the proton, but in any case we will need an enormous number of observation [millions of collision in an accelerator of particles, for example] to collect a suitable sample of data to determine with a reliable accuracy the "objective reality" of that particle. The case of the proton is "simple", well different it's the case of the so called "particle of God", in fact, after the announcement of its discovery there is still who contests the way data have been interpreted [and we are talking about a wide group at CERN make by a good part of the best physicists around the world ... if their job can be contested on rational bases ...].

 

We observe people on a daily basis, and those people are in a constant state of change. Amazingly, it did not require an education in quantum mechanics to realize that they were changing as they are observed. Is that really the best that scientists can come up with? At any rate... what PROOF do the scientists have that validates the idea that the observation is the cause of the change? Are they attempting to declare that they are somehow magically altering something via the supernatural power in their eyes?

 

When your eyes see the color of a tree actually they are receiving [and your brain decoding] electromagnetic radiations coming from the sun [sun light] which impact on the tree and rebound towards you, collecting the information of the color [the surface changes the white light coming from the see].

In the total dark you cannot see the color of that tree. But to do this you don't issue electromagnetic waves by yourself, you take advantage from the sun.

Imagine to be in the dark and you want to see the color of a tennis ball: you launch the ball in the air and you switch a lamp on, you cause the issue of electromagnetic radiations.

Those ER are not able to cause a variation in dimension, mass, potential energy, spin, trajectory of the tennis ball [otherwise tennis players would use a flashlight instead of a racket!].

What if you need to observe a particle in the dark?

Any system of observation will interact in a sensible way with the particle [your own body, if you are not enough far from the place of observation, will interact with the particle] ... so that you will not being observing the particle "as is", but as it will be because of the interactions you will activate while observing it.

Nothing magics ...

 

In all of that the highlighted terms stand out the most. You are right... there is no magic involved... it is merely decoding (interpreting) (subjective activity). Now what part of the scenarios you have represented are 'real' or 'reality' or 'objective reality'?

 

What can be experimented regardless who run the experiment. It's the core of science: the experimental method.

If many different observers can get the same results ...

 

same: (using the primary definition) "1. Being the very one; identical:"

It is highly unlikely that the "many" observers would acquire the identical results. BTW: That "experimental method" (which you have assumed a right to alter (rename) from the previously mentioned "scientific method") would include "personal experience" which in turn would also include "empirical data" as a qualifier for the scientific method.