anart said:
I think what John meant is that at some point you have to stop and focus on where you appear to be at the moment - to make calculations that can provide clues to what that 'where you are' is. Calculations - or experimental 'factual' data have no meaning if the parameters or values are constantly changing due to the infinity of possible universes. If you continue to float, in an every changing reality, then you have no chance to try to actually calculate what this momentary reality, we appear to be in, might actually be.
Perhaps it's merely a statement about 'pay attention to objective reality left and right' - to get a grasp on figuring out what really 'is'. If I'm way off, feel free to let me know.
;)
There seems to be two types of objective reality though. One is, the absolute objective, the other is the objective "after" assumption.
EG. If I went to the shops, and then came back and told someone I had just been to the shops, and named the exact shop, starting point and route taken, that would be an objective statement based on assumptions. However a lot of people would simply call it objective. If I lied, and said I went to a different shop, then it could be said that the objective truth is that I didn't go to that shop, but I went to a different one. But its not really objective, as it is saying that something happened in the past, and no one knows if that exists, aside from a suggestion of it. I think there are other reasons why its not objective, but thats the main one imo.
Absolute objectivity is different to that, osit. Its like laser which draws a line around what you know without any doubt whatsoever, and seperates it from that which is associated with any amount of reason why it can't be true. If there is even the tiniest speck of doubt, the laser goes around it and its in the "unproven" section. Not untrue though, just unproven.
So, with absolute objectivity, the only way to proof that I "went down the shops" would have to be a line of "me's" going to the shops, in the person who is asking's perception, in order for me to "prove" it. The whole event would have to be there. The person would have to see a clear line of me, and the whole area - they would have to see my starting position, my destination, and my finishing position all at once, and they would have to see everything I done on the journey, all at once, and the whole event must not be a memory, it must actually be happening. Then, as it is happening, they might have a chance of saying that is the objective truth. Otherwise, its not, imo.