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?
That’s an interesting position — focusing only on what we can observe makes things very clear and practical.
But there’s also an interesting issue that comes up from that approach.
For example, physics has struggled for over 100 years to unify relativity and quantum theory, and some arguments suggest that this difficulty may be related to restricting reality only to what is observable.
There’s a paper that explores this idea in more detail.
If you’re interested, I’d really appreciate hearing your thoughts on it.
It’s the third paper in a series.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398757987_The_Removal_of_God_from_Knowledge_How_the_Exclusion_of_Absolute_Subjectivity_Shaped_Modern_Science_and_Its_Limits
I mean sure and things that are not observable now might be observable in the future but if there is nothing anchoring like math then it does not really serve any purpose than a religous text or a science fiction story. It helps stretch the imagination but we can't do anything with it till we can.
That makes sense — I agree that without some kind of structure, it’s hard to treat something as meaningful beyond speculation.
But what about cases where there is a strong mathematical structure, even if direct observation is still missing or limited?
For example, in physics, many theories are highly constrained and mathematically consistent, yet still incomplete when it comes to observation — and this seems especially true when trying to connect quantum theory and relativity.
Some arguments suggest that this gap might not just be about missing data, but about how we define “reality” in the first place — especially if we restrict it only to what is directly observable.
The paper I shared in my previous reply suggests this might be a key issue.
I feel mathematics is a type of observation. We can't say conclusively but it provides direction in places to look. I think there is an analog in technology and science. The scientific method has a variety of aspects to it but when it comes down to it when something works enough for us to create consistently its definatively a thing (well until you get conspiracty theorists). So like fusion is not really definatively a thing in the common persons mind because we have not working thing that provides benefit day to day. Im not saying it does not exist but for the common person it might as well not. Its an interesting tidbit to read about maybe but nothing more. Now once we have, if we ever have, fusion reactors powering society it will be a thing and who knows maybe by that time we will be creating and experiementing with micro black holes for power by that time. Quantum computers are at a similar state. They are need possibilities but until they start doing something its just some news articles.
That’s a really clear way to put it — tying reality to what consistently works and can be reproduced.
But then I think there’s a deeper question underneath that.
What actually makes something reproducible in the first place?
Because reproducibility already assumes that different observers can arrive at the same result under similar conditions.
So rather than defining reality as “what works,” it might be that “what works” is actually the result of something more fundamental — a kind of consistency across observers.
If that’s the case, then reproducibility doesn’t define reality, it reflects a deeper structure that allows different perspectives to converge.
And if we only focus on what is already reproducible, we might miss the level where that consistency itself is formed.
I was not really suggesting reproducibility defines reality just its kinda similar in the way the average persons day to day and view of reality is more influenced by what actually works and is present whereas the higher level research scientific level is on observation and math. Quantum mechanics is in a wierd space as its math is solid and technology has been able to be made based on it or at least it explains things we do observe at the macro scale while not being able to observe the quantum level. You conversation really feels like an llm. Im not accusing but you are either really trying to follow something like the dialectic or your an llm or your copying and pasting into an llm. Even with the dialectic though it would not have the non relavent bits that llm's like to use.
I think I agree with you there — for most people, everyday reality is strongly shaped by what actually works and is present in a practical sense.
But that’s also what makes it interesting to me.
Because for something to “work” consistently in that way, it has to produce similar results across many different people and situations.
So it’s not just that it works — it works for multiple observers in a compatible way.
From that perspective, what we call “reality” might not just be about what is present or functional, but about what remains stable when different perspectives overlap.
In other words, everyday reality could be seen not just as what exists, but as what holds together across observers.
I’m actually Japanese and not very fluent in English, so I use AI to help with translation. That might be why my wording sounds a bit unnatural sometimes.
Laura's real name is Satoru Watanabe. They are some weird old man who self-published a bunch of crackpot "papers" about consciousness and being able to control quantum randomness with your mind and keep going around promoting them everywhere under this alias.