Tell Me About "Objective Reality"

Metaphysics & Epistemology
1

What do you personally make of a “God’s POV” ? How do you personally understand the phrase “objective reality ?”

I do not ask “is there an objective reality ?” Why not ? Because such a question tends to be read as a question for the very “God” being questioned.

I don’t ask “Does God exist..according to God ?”

In my view, perspectivism/relativism tends to be misheard as a performative contradiction — by those who haven’t yet been able to “foreground” an inherited and basically automatic assumption or prejudice. Many cannot grasp the point of inquiry if “strong truth” about “objective reality” is not its obvious goal. I hope that defenders of the significance of the phrase “objective reality” at least become more able to see why this is a live issue for others.

I recommend checking out this paper by @Andy , which positions the issue of objective reality within the discourse of physics. How do we understand the “scientific image” ? Is it a useful map within the territory and part of the territory ? Is it an “X-Ray” that gives us “objective reality” as a substrate or "external true reality " ? How do “external” and “objective” relate, if at all ?

Shifting to the more general issue, already live for the ancient Greeks, my current take is that Protagoras is insufficiently appreciated as perhaps the first ontological perspectivist.

Truth is one of Protagoras’ most famous books. Ancient books were not necessarily given their titles by their authors; but Plato and Aristotle continuously refer to Protagoras’ text as Aletheia and also make puns, confirming that Protagoras himself gave this title. The notion of “truth” played a prominent role among the Presocratics: in choosing this title, Protagoras clearly wanted to present himself as an heir to this long-established tradition; and by questioning the existence of one single truth, as we will see, he sought to challenge it. The first sentence of the treatise fully confirms its author’s provocative intentions: “Of all things the measure is man: of those that are, that they are; and of those that are not, that they are not” (80B1 DK; for the sake of convenience, this sentence will be abbreviated as MM). MM is one of the few authentic Protagoras fragments to have been preserved and many ancient sources confirm that the statement was originally formulated precisely in these terms.

Did he mean that the individual human being is the measure ? The species ? The community ? I think the strongest reading involves the individual human being, but we are intensely social creatures, linked by signs.

prompts

Do you think “objective reality” has a substantial meaning ?

If so, how would you unpack this phrase ?

If not, why not ?

How connected is truth to objective reality ? Or, if you prefer, how connected is “truth” to “objective reality” ?

2 Likes
2

Some understand belief as “taking to be true.” I suggest that this approach is backwards. We understand belief, but the meaning of “truth” is elusive.

For some, a “true” assertion involves the matching of an “internal mind content” with an “objective reality” or “external reality.” So the expression of belief becomes a claim about this objective reality. This approach contributes to a reading of Protagoras as incoherent. He is saying — absurdly — that “the truth is there is no truth.”

For others, the word “true” has a primitive meaning that cannot be analyzed. In this case, defining belief in terms of it looks all the more questionable. Belief itself is therefore undefined or just as primitive. Yet I wager that we know what belief is well enough. Indeed, belief is well manifested by wagers, and De Finetti’s work is illuminating here.

All three authors proposed essentially the same behavioristic definition of probability, namely that it is a rate at which an individual is willing to bet on the occurrence of an event. Betting rates are the primitive measurements that reveal your probabilities or someone else’s probabilities, which are the only probabilities that really exist.

PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST
The abandonment of superstitious beliefs about the existence of the Phlogiston, the Cosmic Ether, Absolute Space and Time, … or Fairies and Witches was an essential step along the road to scientific thinking. Probability, too, if regarded as something endowed with some kind of objective existence, is no less a misleading misconception, an illusory attempt to exteriorize or materialize our true probabilistic beliefs. (p. x)

I implicitly relate belief to expectation here, for reasons discussed in detail elsewhere.

De Finetti was strongly influenced by the work of operationalist physicists such as Mach, Bridgman, and Einstein – particularly by Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Relativity theory emphasizes that physical quantities must be defined from the perspective of a given observer using a given measuring instrument. For this reason, concepts such as length, velocity, and simultaneity cannot be defined in absolute terms but only in relative terms, and dimensions of measurement that are commonly believed to be independent (such as space and time) turn out to be strongly connected, particularly when the scale of observation is extreme compared to ordinary experience. Similar lessons come from other branches of modern physics such as quantum mechanics: what may be said to exist depends upon the measurements that are possible to perform.

For context, my own embrace of perspectivism was motivated by my attempt to make sense of science as empirical. Bridgman’s operationalism, mentioned above, scratched my itch for semantic integrity. I was personally frustrated by the way grand terms were flung around without many seeming to notice their lack of grounding in experience. What do you mean by that ? Do you even know or care that you don’t know ? " The trans-empirical or counter-empirical God’s POV becomes one more theological posit, but concealed from itself by its fragile connection to the prestige of technology and by its consciously secular opposition to traditional theology. Yet God’s POV was taken over intact.

To read Protagoras coherently and charitably, I suggest we read him as expressing his own belief as such. But note that belief is no longer a weak and secondary concept in the absence of “objective truth.”

3

In the abstract to his 1993 paper On Quantum Mechanics, Carlo Rovelli acknowledges his debt to Einstein. He writes:

We reformulate the problem of the “interpretation of quantum mechanics” as the problem of deriving the quantum-mechanical formalism from a set of simple physical postulates. We suggest that the common unease with taking quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of nature could derive from the use of an incorrect notion - as the unease with the Lorentz transformations before Einstein derived from the notion of observer-independent time. Following an analysis of the measurement process as described by different observers, we propose a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of information theory. We propose three physical postulates, out of which the formalism of the theory can be reconstructed; these are based on the notion of information that systems have about each other. All systems are assumed to be equivalent: no observer-observed distinction, and information is interpreted as correlation. We then suggest that the incorrect notion that generates the unease with quantum mechanics is the notion of observer-independent state of a system.

Note the last line: “We then suggest that the incorrect notion that generates the unease with quantum mechanics is the notion of observer-independent state of a system.”

It’s interesting to connect this to Thomas Nagel’s notion of the “view from nowhere.” As I understand it, this is not a reference to the “God’s-eye view” that is in question here. Rather it is a kind of ideal that is the goal of science, and I see nothing wrong with this. But Nagel is a metaphysical realist – it seems he does believe there is a “God’s-eye view” over and above his notion of the “view from nowhere” as a scientific ideal. I think the difference is woth keeping in mind.

Einstein, too, was a metaphysical realist. He argued against Bohr’s principle of complementarity, unsuccessfully attempting to undermine it until his death in 1955.

So what are we to make of the phrase “objective reality”? The scientific enterprise is a communal enterprise aimed at eliminating subjective bias in our investigation of nature. That’s commendable, but it doesn’t amount to subscribing to metaphysical realism. I can’t see it implicating anything more than logically sound and empirically adequate intersubjective agreement.

Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to get past at least some of the enigmatic aspects of quantum mechanics (just as Heisenberg got past the enigmatic aspects of the Bohr model of the atom with his ‘reinterpretation’ paper in 1925). But it is one of many interpretations, so the issue is far from settled. The real question here is whether or not developemnts in quantum mechanics can tell us anything about the ontology.

1 Like
4

As far as objectivity is concerned, research reveals that “objectivity” in today’s sense really only becomes part of the philosophical lexicon in the early modern period. Prior to that, it meant “as perceived or thought” which is pretty well opposite what we mean by it now.

But you can see how objectivity came to hold sway with scientific revolution, the concentration on the measurable attributes of bodies and the advances in science generally. Objective means “inherent in the object” and in that sense “the same for any observer”. Early modern science, with its concentration on observation validated by experiment, was able to disentangle objective physics from the quasi-mythological elements of Aristotelian philosophy and devise a method whereby any two experimenters could arrive at the same result by following the same method. Francis Bacon, Galileo, and other giants of the age were responsible for these breakthroughs whch have provided such momentous results in culture and society.

Objectivity remains a vital criterion for all manner of scientific enquiry, also for other disciplines such as jurisprudence and history. It is very much grounded in disciplined abstraction, the application of rigorous methods to ideal forms. But the concentration on what is ‘inherent in the object’ also leaves out much which is highly relevant to human beings as subjects who are acting in situations in which they are also agents.

Something often overlooked is the formative role of religion in the formation of modern science. The objective method was originally motivated to ameliorate the consequences of the Fall on the intellect. Peter Harrison, in his book The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science, shows that modern experimental science was originally devised to remediate this fallen state. Francis Bacon’s program in particular reads like a manual of ascetic discipline: experiment restrains imagination; measurement restrains bias; method restrains self-delusion. Science was conceived not as a neutral enterprise but as a form of cognitive therapy, designed to compensate for the brokenness of human understanding.

Anotherfactor in the formation of early modern science was the deliberate exclusion of ideas deemed too close to religion. This “firewall” arose — and quite understandably! — in the aftermath of the seminal conflict that gave rise to the Scientific Revolution, namely, the Trial of Galileo. The nascent scientific community had to insulate itself from religious politics by avoiding any engagement with metaphysics, and along with it, the intuitive insights that had long been esteemed in philosophical spirituality (and not only Christian). Yet this defensive stance had unforeseen consequences. It didn’t eliminate metaphysics so much as drive it underground, where it continued to appear in the form of the questions of meaning — questions that the objective sciences were not equipped to explore.

This allowed the mechanical worldview of the seventeenth century to harden into an assumed picture of “the world as it really is” — a world within which humans increasingly began to appear as the accidental byproducts of a mindless process.

Through this process, science cemented the “bracketing of subjectivity” — but without the sapiential dimension that originating tradition saw as the remedy to the fallen condition. Thus did the fallen state became normalised: the world was construed as mind-independent, value-free, and meaningless, and this abstraction was taken to be objective reality itself. Henceforth, questions of ethics and aesthetics were to become increasingly internalised and subjective, which is how they have remained.

None of which calls objectivity into question so much as place it in a larger context.

2 Likes
5

For those preoccupied with this question, the search for objective reality seems to be a search for a foundation, a guarantee for our beliefs. And in this way, it all seems to come back to God.

Despite this, my perspective is that truth and objective reality are of little interest to us as we go about our daily lives. We navigate and manage our environment using simple notions of correspondence: what is in front of us, what works, and what we can rely on. Exploring the metaphysical assumptions underpinning these notions may be interesting, but it can also be a parlour game, detached from anything that makes a practical difference.

The persistent uncertainty and disagreement surrounding objective reality and what truth means make me wonder whether the concept has any substantive meaning beyond the various philosophical frameworks in which it is used.

I think where this does get interesting is when we have to make choices. Is it true that we can cure cancer by praying, or is it true that chemotherapy has a better efficacy? We can’t always afford to say there is no truth to a given matter. Certain things seem to be the case.

1 Like
6

For me, objective reality is the life that keeps challenging my thoughts. It never stops, and I imagine that reality itself is inexhaustible.

1 Like
7

Objective reality is reality independent of anyone’s point of view. “The sky is Blue” is an objective fact: it holds whether or not anyone believes it.

Some claims go beyond physical fact. “Harming innocent people is wrong” is one that many philosophers argue is objectively true, even though some people reject it.

Gravity works the same way. Someone can sincerely believe it doesn’t exist, but if they step off a roof, they fall. Their belief changes nothing about what happens to them. Reality doesn’t wait for agreement, and it doesn’t make exceptions for those who deny it.

1 Like
8

One dictionary gives the meaning of “objective” as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

To me the key phrase here is “without distortion.” This quietly suggests something “inherent in the object.” It also suggests an ideal apprehension of the object. To be objective is to be the ideal perceiver who thereby accesses the “undistorted” object.

Right. Even here we have to ignore “mathematical noise” and the limitations of our measurement devices. But this repeatability remains the crucial criterion. You didn’t “really” achieve cold fusion if “we” can’t achieve it by the same method. So tacitly the goal is the method not the particular event.

Perhaps it drove underground any metaphysics connected historically to religion. But this left room for another metaphysics, which scientists would sometimes espouse or endorse. Hawking wrote that “philosophy is dead.” To me this manifests a tacit identification of science and metaphysics, which doesn’t do science the favor that some might think it does.

I agree that many have adopted this as a kind of default “obvious” view, not grasping that it’s an intensely metaphysical claim, which is to say only one interpretation among others, and not a sophisticated one.

This one is more complex, in my view. The theory of evolution at least makes it plausible that certain conditions allow for the development of life. Of course many other issues are left unaddressed. Perhaps the deepest and strangest issue is consciousness.

9

I will try to answer briefly.
An objective reality certainly exists (metaphorically speaking, it is the “territory”). We can approach an understanding of it by projecting our own constructs onto it (metaphorically, the “map”). However, objective reality can never be fully grasped by the human intellect, for several reasons: first, we cannot “test” every single thing; second, we can never experience every object in the full spectrum of its relationships (which would be necessary to understand all its properties); and third, objective reality is in a state of constant flux—meaning that even if our knowledge of it were the most accurate possible, it would still inevitably lag behind (by the time I finish measuring the temperature of the water, it has already changed).

Yet, we need this concept, even if we do not possess it in reality. In fact, the very notion of “objective reality” is an idealistic construct, much like everything else we conceive. Nevertheless, we require it as a mental representation—a horizon toward which we can strive. It is essential for us to have it; for without such an aspiration, how are we any different from a “stationary stone,” simply lying there and waiting to see what might happen to it?

2 Likes
10

Yes indeed ! We wager our lives in one direction rather than another. This is why I like extending the concept of belief too all expectant conduct. We say…lots of things. But how do we spend our money and time in a tough situation ? We enact what we “really” believe.

We definitely agree on this point. Versions and versions of God. To “guarantee our beliefs” is to neutralize the future as future. I see science as doing this too, but concretely via technology, without giving us an obvious discursive-spiritual interpretation of its naked power.

1 Like
11

I am very much with you that the territory is fundamental. We take it for granted in all discussion. I find the word “objective” misleading here. Yes, we discuss the same territory. But we precisely don’t have “objective” access to it. Indeed, I count all experience as territory, and I can’t make sense of “unexperienced territory.” So I don’t think we assume a “God monad” or a “true object.” Others may disagree.

I agree that we have some kind of ideal that plays an important role. At least we like to move toward agreement with those we consider allies.

Can we not make sense of a our more vague horizon ? Can I not be motivated by the hope that I can be better than I am already ? That “we” can “up our game” still more ?

12

To me that is far from trivial. What does it mean to say so ? Does the sky appear to me as it appears to you ? We both call it “blue.” Maybe my color vision is weird. Perhaps an alien sees it very differently than we do.

I also expect people to fall. But to me that expectation is belief. So you believe they will fall. They don’t perhaps. I agree with you. But I see that I expect something. I can imagine ( vaguely ) a gradual or even sudden shift in the way things tend to behave. As Hume pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be a deductive justification for our strong expectation.

13

I’m with you, but I would just lose the “objective” and talk about reality plain and simple. Because that reality will still show itself to me. As you say, reality challenges us. I’d even almost even identify the reality with future experience, which I expect to surprise and eventually destroy me.

14

Objective reality exists, but in itself, it is merely another product of the imagination—given that it is unattainable and, quite simply, lacks any criteria by which its attainment could be measured.

An intriguing thesis (in a nutshell), which I stated above. It’s a complex matter—the kind that requires a stiff drink to untangle.

Well, then. In my daily life, I do, in fact, rely on certain criteria for objectivity: 1. Truth is that which works; 2. Truth is that which aligns with my ideals (which are derived from my telos).

Consider this: a bridge is considered “good” if it remains standing and bears the required loads. But how do I know that it ought to remain standing—ideally for as long as possible—rather than collapse? This is precisely where my telos comes into play, becoming idealized into what, for me, ought to be.

2 Likes
15

I see what you mean, and I think it’s an interesting question. Still, the sky remains blue even if we experience that blue differently. Our perceptions may vary, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the reality we’re perceiving is subjective

16

Well said !

We can get intersubjective agreement in terms of a view-(ideally)-from-any-where. So an ontological perspectivism looks quite compatible with this goal, and exemplifies a significant “metaphysical” deviation from “objective reality” in terms of metaphysical realism. QBism ( however you want to count that ) also seems quite reasonable.

1 Like
17

Just for context, my approach is ontological perspectivism. So I don’t think of experience as “inside the brain.” Yet subjectivity “goes all the way down” in the sense that “reality itself” is “only from a point of view.” Consciousness is not “inside head stuff” but “being” or “presence.”

That’s just my approach. It requires a rethinking of the structure of objects and of time. I think it’s compatible with the scientific worldview.

18

What is objective reality to you then?

19

I’d say that “objective reality” is basically a nonsense phrase — a residue of monotheism. It is perhaps tacitly the world as “God” knows it, but I have no need for that hypothesis.

20

I’m very much with you on the centrality of telos. To me experience is immediately reality-from-POV (not pineal gland icon stuff), and our experience is structured by care ( hope and fear). The world is a temporal depth through which we scheme. We call “real” what we count on and have to reckon with. So the value structure is primary. Heidegger, Hobbes, and Peirce are big influences on me here.