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?
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.