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 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.