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?
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: Not
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.
I largely agree with your position that finding an objective reality in a strict sense is difficult.
If anything, I think your argument about the lack of an “ideal definition” (like in the case of games) already points to something deeper: that every access to what we call “reality” is structurally mediated by a subject.
Where I would slightly extend your point is this:
it’s not just that we fail to reach an objective reality, but that the very framework we use already assumes a separation between observer and observed.
And that assumption itself might be the root of the problem.
In that sense, I also agree that most attempts to preserve “objective reality” end up relying on some form of dualism — even if implicitly.
From my perspective, this isn’t just a philosophical issue.
It may actually be connected to why modern physics has struggled for over a century to reconcile relativity and quantum theory.
Relativity treats the observer as a coordinate frame within a continuous structure, while quantum theory assigns a more active role to observation in determining states.
Both start from a separation, but develop it in incompatible ways.
So the difficulty might not lie in the theories themselves, but in the underlying assumption that observer and reality can be cleanly separated in the first place.
If you’re interested, there is a paper that approaches this issue from the level of the structure of observation itself, including some experimental work. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts if you have the time to read it at your own pace.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398757987_The_Removal_of_God_from_Knowledge_How_the_Exclusion_of_Absolute_Subjectivity_Shaped_Modern_Science_and_Its_Limits