Even though the theory of relativity says that information cannot be
transmitted faster than the speed of light, why does that make it
nonsensical to talk about "objective reality"? I realize that different
observers must see different versions of events, but so what? In our 3+1
dimensional universe, couldn't "objective reality" be defined as the state
of events at a "time slice," as though the universe had frozen at the
instant chosen? Granted, we can't know what this distant objective reality
is until we wait for the photons to reach us, but that doesn't make it
nonsense. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy
is objective reality, even though our subjective reality is that the
supernova has not occurred. We have to wait a million years to make the
----- Original Message -----
From: "danny mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "everything list" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: subjective reality]
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
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.
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
>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'.
>(the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 8/7/2005