Objective reality

I've always liked the dictionary:

quote:

---

intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

---

Objective reality would be that which exists outside of our own minds, independant of our thoughts or feelings or knowledge or beliefs. If there is a pen on my desk, its presence is independent f whether I am aware of it, or believe it, or like it.We detect objective reality through subjective means, because the analysis of sensory information happens within our own minds. I do not see the building across the street - I see a pattern of shapes and colors, which I interpret subjectively to be the building based on past experiences.It's impossible to know with certainty what is and is not objectively real. After all, we could be in the Matrix, in which case nothing exists in objective reality and all of what we see is subjective. Or, you could all be figments of my subjective imagination.However, for practical purposes, we treat our sensory information as a reflection of objective reality. How we determine that what we've detected is what we think it is in objective reality (was that a bird I saw out of the corner of my eye, or just a falling leaf?) is a more complciated subject, and is the reason we have myths regarding ghosts and fairies and other things that people will claim to have detected through subjective means, but for which no external evidence can be found to place them in objective reality.For me, I determine what I consider to be objectively real based on a concordance with my other senses and the evidence left behind. If I saw a man, do I still see him? Do I see footprints, or hear him speaking? If I saw him briefly out of my peripheral vision for only a moment and now cannot find either him or any trace of his passing, I will be less confident that the man exists objectively, and will consider that I may have simply misinterpreted limited sensory information.When multiple people see something, I count their individual subjective experiences as evidence of the objective when they agree, to a point, for mundane observations only. If my neighbor claims to have seen a cat, I'll believe him. For extraordinary claims, I require extraordinary evidence - if a hundred people claim to have seen an alien spacecraft, I will believe that they all saw something, but I will require additional, independent data (video evidence, a piece of the craft, something other than "I said so") to verify their interpretation of what was seen.This establishes a base of what I would consider practical knowledge of objective reality. I assume that our sensory information is indicative of objective reality because without that assumption nothing else can follow. I easily believe what is frequently observed, and am skeptical of claims of the extraordinary even when multiple people make similar claims if no independent evidence can support their interpretation of their subjective experiences. Anything else would lead me to frequently believe misinterpreted subjective nonsense to be objectively true, or would cause me to doubt even the most mundane of claims.

There is no practical difference, and since a difference that makes no difference is not a difference, we treat the reality we sense as the objective one. The point of the argument is that the Matrix, described as a "dream world," exists only within our minds. To paraphrase the movie itself, if what is "real" is what you can see and taste and touch, then reality is simply electrochemical signals interpreted by our brains.But objective reality must by definition be that which exists independent of our minds. The Matrix disappears when somebody hits the power switch, or unplugs us. Objective reality is indifferent to our state of mind, our our connection to a giant computer.

Because mathematical constructs are representations of objective reality. An alien intelligence certainly won't know the term "pi", but they'll undoubtedly know and acknowledge the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle.Mathematics is just language. The symbols and words subjectively represent objective facts. The existence of my cat is objectively real; the word "cat" is a subjective symbol that represents my cat in the mind of anyone who understands English. The word "two" is a subjective representation of a quantity that exists in objective reality.

I think that pi, as with all other numbers and mathematics, is a subjective concept, not an objective reality. It's a conceptual tool we use to help us model and understand objective reality; despite the fact that perfect circles do not appear to exist in nature, pi is nevertheless useful to us in attempting to describe reality.I think that all of mathematics is the same - it's a subjective conceptual tool that we use. As a model and because its only tie to objective reality is our own minds and senses, mathematical concepts will not perfectly match objective reality - but through continued observation, we have made some of our conceptual models accurate enough to make predictions that turn out to be very close to reality. We used purely subjective mathematics along with objective observations of anomalous orbits to predict the presence of both Pluto and Neptune, and those predictions turned out to be accurate.But mathematics is not only used to model objective reality. It;s also used in purely subjective pursuits, like economics. The amount of money I have in my bank account is completely subjective - without the human mind to give money value, it's a worthless combination of paper, metals, and computer hardware.As a conceptual tool, mathematics can be used both to model what we determine to be objectively real and for completely subjective purposes, and neither detracts from the usefulness of the other.

Assuming we're talking about aliens capable of abstract thought who have developed mathematics?Yes. Pi is a concept derived from objective observations. The conceptual "perfect circle" is an idealization of naturally occurring circles, and it's inevitable that sufficiently advanced mathematics systems will attempt to determine the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle - it's simply too pragmatically useful not to.I think mathematics is a prime example of why "shared subjectivity" does not define objective reality. Multiple people can independently arrive at similar or even identical subjective conceptual conclusions, but without those people and their minds, the concepts do not exist, and therefore do not exist independent of the individuals, even if the concepts are attempting to describe something that does exist objectively.

Pi is a concept. It doesn't "exist" independently of a mind to hold it. It qualifies as "shared subjectivity," but if every human being died today, the concept of pi would not continue to exist any more than the concepts of democracy or love or logic.If a tree falls in a forest with nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?The answer is typically that the falling tree makes vibrations in the air that human senses would interpret as sound, regardless of whether one is present or not.The circles we observe in reality exist regardless of whether or not we are around to see them. Pi is a conceptual model that represents the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle in our minds.If nobody capable of abstract thought were to exist, neither would pi. The relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle would continue to exist, but our conceptual model representing that reality would not.That's also why I think aliens would independently arrive at the same (or at least nearly so) conceptual model - it's intended as a reflection of reality. As long as we are all in fact observing a reality that exists independent of our own existence or thoughts or opinions, we'd be modeling the same thing and would arrive at the same (or very similar) subjective concepts.

Mathematics in the sense we're talking about now is an attempt to model reality. The model is not itself reality, just as a picture of my cat is not actually my cat. The model is subjective, the real thing being modeled is not. Models can be wrong or inaccurate depending on our methodologies or imperfect intellects; the real thing simply exists as it is, independent of us. Does a perfect circle exist in objective reality, without a mind to conceive of it? If so, then yes - the relationship is objective. But our modelof that relationship, which we symbolize with pi, exists only within our minds, just as the word "cat" is a subjective symbol that refers to an objectively real thing.

Yes. Assuming that a perfect circle objectively exists, the relationship between circumference and diameter would also exist regardless of observation or opinion.All I'm saying is that equations like "c=pi(2r)" are not objective, as they require a mind to subjectively assign values to those variables and numbers, and the fact that we all agree on what values to assign those symbols does not make the equation any more objective. Only what the equation represents is objective and real.

I don't think we disagree.

Perhaps another way of saying the same thing would be that 6,7,8,9.... are anticipated to be part of objective reality based on extrapolation of the rules that have been deduced from observation?In other words, you observe that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all values that seem to exist in reality. You extrapolate the pattern of counting as incrementing integers, and predict that additional integers of greater value than 1-5 should exist. The observation of a sixth apple would then affirm the anticipated experience, increasing the probability that the rule you've worked out (there are an infinite number of integers incrementing in values of 1) is an accurate representation of objective reality.