Fair enough. But if we accept those parameters does it make any sense to even talk about "reality."? Maybe in a philosophical sense, but certainly not in a scientific sense as by (your) definition objective reality, the only reality you say, is forever separated from what it is possible for us to experience, or to know. Therefore, in contemplating objective reality, we might as well be contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In a way you are certainly right, but in another way I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about objective reality either. For instance, under the theory of relativity different observers can observe the same events happening in alternative sequences, and happening at different times. Yet neither observer is wrong. So, for example in that event you can not speak of an objective sequence of events or time. And of course we are all aware of the role the observer plays in the development of quantum events.

It seems to me that the observer is so intimately entagled with the reality of what he is observing that it makes just as little sense to talk about objective reality as it does subjective. However, this is not to say I do not believe in something like an objective reality; a way in which our world works that can be understood and studied and applies to all observers. But by the same token I believe in the concept of a subjective reality as complementary to that and as something with meaning.
Danny Mayes

John M wrote:

Dear Bruno, you (and as I guess: others, too) use the
subject phrase. Does it make sense?
Reality is supposed to be something independent from
our personal manipulations (=1st person
interpretation) and so it has got to be objective,
untouched by our experience and emotions. Eo ipso it
is not subjective.
Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its
own distortions it is "subjective", not objective
anymore. So it looks like "subjective reality" is an oxymoron.

I understand if you (all) use the phrase as the
'imagined' and 'acceptable' version of something we
CAN handle in our feeble minds. I would not call THAT
a 'reality'. It seems to be a 'virtuality' as
generated (even if only in modifications if you
insist) WITHIN our mind, subject to our personal
mental structure and content.
I am not ashamed to say: I dunno, but it seems to
in wich case I separated 'it' from any 'reality'.

John M
(the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion)

Reply via email to