How do you define Objective Reality without a circularity?

Question

We infer that the external world continues independant of our experiencing it or believing it to be so, based on substantial and diverse means of verification.

Yet there's no way to verify the verification principle-- to judge the methods of obtaining sense data WITH sense data.

Are we entitled to the concept of "objective reality"-- or only that we get closer to what we can know by empirical methods.

Answer 1

There is no way to condense limitless nature and have the definition remain limitless. Definitions and language themself, as well as all our senses, have limits. Simply put, to conceptualize or objectify means to reduce and characterize. We reduce the nature of a tangible in order to grasp a selective meaning for it. Knowing that many derivatives and explanations can be used to identify reality gives light to the eternity of reality.

However, though you cannot see all spectrums of light, we have inferred there to be other wave patterns beyond what is visible to the eye. We can see infrared with the assistance of goggles. We know there to be gamma rays exemplified in cellular information technology. It is only when something is instantiated in an application that it gives us enough proof to its validity, but again, this limits the true nature of reality. It is still reality, but understood within the confines of our limited senses and knowledge.

Bodhisattvas preach unknowing and awakening. To cease the brain of thought through meditation we can attain enlightenment via realization. Proof will only base parameters and segregate what could otherwise be easily understood if the mind were open, so to speak.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man is it is, infinite."

-William Blake

However,

"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."

-Albert Einstein, (1954)

Answer 2

The way out of circularity is through epistemology (read Jean Piaget: “Introduction a l’epistemologie genetique”). There, it is shown that we know the “object” only through our action on it. This explains the success of the scientific method. Intelligence is a process which has for main goal our adaptation to “reality”. So, this is definitely not a circular or closed concept. Explained in this sense, then the notion of “objective reality” is kind of useless (like absolute truth).

The principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg does not imply circularity either. It all depends on what really cause the “reduction” event. We could imagine, for instance, that it is the numerous (but finite) amount of interactions between the particles forming the Universe (or experiment apparatus) that decide finally the reduction of the wave packet (this may also explain why we do not perceive quantum effect in the macroscopic world). Now if the reduction is not reversible then this could produce an impression similar to an “objective reality”. Showing that the irreversibility of the reduction of the wave packet is related to an increase of entropy would help support such an idea (and may be interesting from the point of view of understanding the arrow of time…may have also interesting possibilities in cosmology too).

So obviously Schrodinger cat is dead (these are macroscopic systems anyway).

Answer 3

Perhaps objective reality can be defined and proven using proof by contradiction -- that the world as we know it does not work without objective reality.

The farthest galaxies are 13 billion light years away but they are there whenever we want to turn the Hubble telescope upon them. No matter how we feel and no matter if we put a hex on them. Their light has been travelling since before the dawn on man. It hasn't disintegrated, diffused, gone awy or disappeared because of a wish or disbelief. That descriptio doesn't work normally if everything is in the imagination of man or can be altered by wish or prayer or hope. The photons that started streaming from that galaxy 13 billion years ago keep on going and do so consistently.

I think that shows objective reality without circularity. It does raise another argument, whether objective reality includes everything we can observe using instrumentation, or whether using machines is a denial of objective reality, but (again using proof by contradiction), I don't see anything objective about denying the existance of black holes or radio stars just because the gravity is inconceivable or there is no light or the human eye can't see radio frequencies.

Answer 4

Great question.
I don't think we can define Objective Reality without a circularity.
That is, Quantum Mechanics has established that the observer affects the experiment. Light is made of particles or waves, depending upon how the observer looks at it.
Science assumes that sense data is reliable unless contradicted by reason or subsequent experience. This is why consensus is so important to science - if we can't agree upon what we are experiencing, how can we make any progress at all? Thus science is handicapped by social conventions (such as the belief that animals are inferior). Ultimately, science is empirical. Scientists need to take sacred mushrooms!

Answer 5

First off, I'd clarify what circularity it is that you're imagining when postulating a definition of an Objective Reality. Reality, as in all of matter and energy that exist on this dimension, just IS; whether there are humans (or any other sapient beings) around to perceive and ask moot questions about it. That is the Objective part.
Reality is wholly independent of and unconcerned about anyone's beliefs or attitudes about it. It is simply hubris to assume the weltanschauung that the universe and everything in it is somehow dependent on us Lilliputian humans.
Now if you're going to get into discussions over our (limited) abilities to sense that external Reality, then you're getting into subjective sense impressions that rely on personal verifications

Answer 6

There's a difference between having the concept of objective reality and having any data about the referent of that concept.

The concept (that is, the thought) can be classified, perhaps uniquely, as a formal concept - one without any actual or possible empirical content.

Having classified it as that, we can define it, quite formally, as "that which causes concepts (thoughts)".

So, the concept (the thought) 'objective reality' is the concept of that which causes concepts (that is, that which causes thoughts).

The concept of 'cause/effect' does not qualify as empirical content, because, as Hume pointed out, we never experience the necessary connection between the cause and the caused.

I hold that it follows from the above that we are entitled to the formal concept of objective reality, but we can never be entitled to give it empirical content.

Answer 7

Does something exist without our observation..? Is the cat dead in a chamber or only if we open the chamber and observe it, then and only then can we make the statement that its dead?

How do we verify something without objective observation, we can only assume and base our 'reality' on the tools at hand. Empirical evidence gets us closer to Objective Reality, but even then the Chaos Theory and the Uncertainty Principle kicks in....as they say..."truth is transitory."

Answer 8

I will eventually get tired of saying the same thing.
But here it goes again:
No, we are not technically entitled to "objective reality" but we might as well assume it for Instrumental reasons.

Answer 9

Well, uh, I guess I'm a little out of my league here... but what the hell.

Is a chair still a chair when I'm not looking at it? How do I know? If the world around us is pulled into shape and reality by our collective thoughts....whew. What does that mean? What are we, what are we capable of? That's a little too basic, I know. Maybe I'm just too dumb for this one........