This hit the news the other day: A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
The following is mainly a condensation of discussion here, just in case anyone wants to follow the evolution and see the nuances.
Subjectivity:
Subject ----> Object
Anything discerned about the object by the subject is subjective. What’s real is only in terms of what can be discerned, so reality is just as much dependent upon the subject as the object.
Objectivity:
(((Object)))
There is no subject. It just is. Reality exists independent of observation and the subject plays no part in defining what’s real.
It’s that simple.
Remember James saying that which has no affect does not exist? That’s subjectivity. An objectivist would posit that something exists regardless if it has affect (ie no subject required); it just is.
The dictionary definition of objective:
: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
adjective
-being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.
-intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
-being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
-of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
dictionary.com/browse/objective
In objectivity, the object exists independent of an observer. And the incidental existence of any observer is inconsequential to reality.
Objectivity posits that the sun could be the only thing in existence since subjects aren’t required for it to manifest, but light can’t exist until its destination has been found, and heat is just IR light, so it’s clear as day that the sun wouldn’t be a sun at all without other things in the universe. We could say the planets “summon the light” from the sun. Our eyes solicit light from the world like one pole of a battery pulls current from the other.
The nucleus of an atom couldn’t be a nucleus without the existence of the electron, so the electron calls into existence the nucleus as a nucleus in order to make an atom.
Don’t confuse popular subjectivity with objectivity:
“The Earth is an oblate spheroid.” Why should I consider that to be a subjective claim?
Because the appearance of the earth is discerned by a subject in relation to the earth as an object. It’s a subjective claim that’s popular (except with the flat-earthers).
But, for instance, “murder is absolutely wrong” can’t be viewed, so it’s not subject to the subject. It just is.
And if you find some line of logic to substantiate the “murder is wrong” claim, then it instantly becomes subject to logical reasoning.
IOW, if you say murder is wrong because of this line of thought ________, then someone could say, “Well, that doesn’t apply to me because _____, ____, and _____, so murder is ok for me.”
But if you say murder is absolutely wrong, period. Then there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It doesn’t depend on how anyone looks at it. It just is. It’s not subject to anything.
Reality can’t exist independent of observation or else we could have positive with no negative. Positive is only positive because the negative is negative. Without the negative, the positive cannot exist. Reality can only happen in a duality.
If the sun were the only thing in the universe, in what way could it be said to exist? It would give off no light, no heat, it would have no gravity, nor have any properties whatsoever because there is nothing interacting with it. Things are said to exist in terms of their interactions with other things and that idea was principle to James’ theory of things being nonexistent because they have no affect on anything.
James said “I would recommend that “existence” is well defined as “that which has affect”. That which has no affect whatsoever does not exist. And “to affect” means to cause or be responsible for change.” viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193641&p=2687573&hilit=no+affect+affect+exist#p2687573
The Monty Hall Problem:
Many readers of vos Savant’s column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
You can pound your reasoning into someone’s head all you want, but if it doesn’t click, it doesn’t click. It takes a subject with clicking capability to perceive the reasoning as reasonable.
So, like I was saying, as soon as you attach reasoning to any claim in order to support it, the truth of that claim immediately becomes subject to that reasoning (including this post - if you can’t see what I mean, then it doesn’t exist to you).
What is observation?
Observation is the affectance James was on about.
It’s a popular misconception in QM that consciousness is required to collapse the wave function since the only thing required is observation (interaction); not conscious observation.
With the exception of gravity, our whole universe appears to be nothing but charge: the light our eyes perceive are just charge oscillation, the heat that we feel are results of charge oscillations, the smells are charge-dependent chemical reactions, sound is pressure waves resulting from charge-dependent van der waals forces, and ditto for touch. So the connectivity between everything that exists mainly relies on the existence charge separation to happen.
So the affectance that things have (the potential to cause effects) are in terms of charge and gravity at the fundamental level… and that appears to be the extent of it. So what is observation if it’s not described by those two forces?
Like electricity seeking a path to ground, the light from the sun departs and arrives at our eyes, which causes charges to jiggle, which causes our brains, via chemical jostling, to become aware of the jiggling and interpret such as color or heat. The observation is the mechanical bit and the conscious realization of the perception of color isn’t required to make it all go.
There is no such thing as unbiased reasoning. Everyone is biased.
There is no such thing as objective evaluation. All you can do is collect more opinions. And “fact” is consensus of opinion.
The object/subject juxtaposition deals with observation and not application. Even in subjectivity, the object is assumed to be applicable to all who have mechanism to perceive it. For example sound is perceptible to everyone with functioning ears; it’s not like there are those with ears who cannot hear because the speaker was targeting only certain subjects, but the speaker delivers to all who have capability. So it’s not a matter of who it applies to, but who has means to discern. The reality of the object is subject to the subject.
The quantity of people to which a claim applies is not the test for objectivity.
Even if everyone on earth agrees on a fact, it is still subjective. It’s not objective, but popular subjectivity.
“Murder is wrong” is an objective claim not because it applies to everyone, but because there is no path to see it: no deductive argument supporting it and we cannot see it lying around to verify it empirically. It’s just pulled from someone’s imagination, asserted to be true, and what anyone thinks about it is irrelevant. It’s not subject to anything, but just is (by authority).
“The earth is a spheroid” is a subjective claim because it’s subject to the definition of spheroid and subject to the judgment that the earth fits the definition. It’s not asserted to be true regardless what anyone thinks about it.
I’m not asserting my position to be true regardless what anyone thinks about it, but supplying deductive reasoning as a lens so that everyone capable of logic can see it.
“Murder is wrong” is just sitting there in the middle of nothingness, having no affect on anything, having no path to interact with it, to see it. It doesn’t exist. And if you assert it to exist, then you’re making an observerless observation.
On the other hand, if “murder is wrong” because it’s bad for society (or whatever) then it’s subject to the definition of “bad” and subject to the judgment that murder fits the definition.
Objectivity and subjectivity are not dealing with the quantities of people that things apply to, but are concerned about how things are discerned (observed). They are statements about observation (interaction) and not application.
Words get muddled in their meaning through time. Another example is agnosticism, which is a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about belief, but the original meaning of agnosticism has been muddled. It’s similar with objectivity. It’s convenient to use the word in an alternate sense, but then confusion arises when two meanings are conflated.
An objectivist is essentially someone who posits things to exist without deductive or empirical evidence (ie god, morality, gender stereotypes like: men should work and women cook n clean, etc). If the objectivist tries to back his claims with rationale, then he’s no longer an objectivist since he’s subjugated his position to rational interpretation.
What’s true for all of us is coincidentally true for all of us; not that things that are true for all of us has more meaning or importance than things that are only true for some of us. The fact that something is true for all of us means nothing.
The speaker gives sound to anyone who can hear it. The speaker does not decide to give sound to only some people while not others. If people can hear the sound, then they hear the sound. All things are issued to all, but not all can perceive. So whether something is true for all of us is just pure coincidence and means nothing. Popular subjectivity doesn’t make it less subjective.