Science >95% Certainty of Absolute Objective Reality??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a discussion related to the above;

Thus it is very reasonable to assert there are,
-virus based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-human based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-aliens based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
-XYZ based FSK intersubjectivity of reality
without any absolutely absolute reality.

What is there to discuss? You are as utterly incapable as you were 5 years ago, to see that you are employing a dead obvious non-sequitur.

Just because every species is bound to its own kind of "intersubjective" reality as their nervous systems are built differently, and couldn't experience "absolutely absolute reality" exactly as it is, if there was such a reality, that doesn't mean that there is no "absolutely absolute reality".
Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.
I'd say according to science it's over 95% likely that there is one.

There is NOTHING difficult about the above insight, I don't know what kind of cognitive impairment would prevent someone from seeing it.

Here is Bard's [with reservations] to the above from an antirealist's perspective;

Engaging with a philosophical realist who expresses strong conviction for an "absolutely absolute reality" requires careful navigation with several strategies:

Challenge the claim of "absolutely absolute":
Question the definition: Ask your interlocutor to precisely define what they mean by "absolutely absolute reality." This can expose internal inconsistencies or vagueness in their concept. For example, how can something be "absolutely absolute" yet potentially unknowable by any consciousness?

Highlight contradictions: Point out how the claim of "absolutely absolute reality" inherently contradicts the statement that it might not exist. Can something be absolutely absolute if it also has a 5% chance of non-existence?

Emphasize subjectivity: Remind them that even seemingly objective scientific observations are mediated by our senses and conceptual frameworks. Is it possible to access "absolute reality" without any filtering through subjective constructs?

Address the "95% scientific certainty":
Distinguish science and metaphysics: Science deals with observable evidence and testable hypotheses. Metaphysics, on the other hand, deals with unobservable concepts like "absolute reality." Explain that these are distinct domains with different modes of inquiry.

Challenge the basis of the statistic: Ask how they arrived at the 95% figure. Is it based on empirical evidence or pure speculation? Can such a precise numerical value be assigned to a metaphysical concept?

As an antirealist leaning towards the Kantian perspective, you have several options to counter your interlocutor's claim of "absolutely absolute reality" and their high scientific certainty. Here are some approaches:

1. Challenge the Definition:
Question the meaning of "absolutely absolute": Is it possible to have a reality that is completely independent of all minds and experiences, even hypothetically? Kant argued that space and time are not inherent properties of reality itself, but rather ways in which our minds structure experience. This suggests that absolute independence from minds might be impossible to conceive.
Distinguish between different types of "reality": Antirealists often differentiate between empirical reality, which we access through our senses and concepts, and "reality in itself," which is unknowable and independent of our minds. You could argue that the "absolutely absolute reality" your interlocutor proposes is inaccessible and therefore not a meaningful concept.

2. Critique the Scientific Certainty:
Emphasize the limitations of scientific knowledge: Science is always limited by our current methods and understanding. New discoveries can dramatically change our perspective on reality. Claiming 95% certainty about something inherently unknowable seems like overconfidence.
Point out the subjectivity of scientific interpretations: Scientific data is interpreted through theoretical frameworks, which themselves are subjective and can change over time. There is no objective, neutral way to access "absolute reality" through science.

Engaging with a philosophical realist, especially one who holds a strong stance on absolute reality, requires careful consideration and nuanced arguments. Here are some approaches you can take from your antirealist perspective:

1. Challenge the 95% scientific certainty:
Question the basis: Ask your interlocutor to clarify what specific scientific evidence leads them to a 95% certainty about absolute reality. Point out that this claim seems exceptionally high, given the inherent limitations of scientific methods in dealing with metaphysics.
Highlight scientific uncertainty: Remind them that scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and our knowledge of the universe is far from complete. Suggest that basing certainty on incomplete information is risky.


2. Dissect the concept of "absolutely absolute reality":
Define the terms: Request a clear definition of both "absolute" and "reality" in this context. Explore how these terms might be ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.
Highlight the paradoxical nature: Point out that the concept of something being absolutely independent of all minds, including its own, seems contradictory. How can something exist if there's no mind to conceive it?
Question the accessibility: If this reality is truly absolute, how can we ever know anything about it? Our knowledge and experience are always filtered through our own subjective frameworks, making it impossible to access pure objectivity.

The main point is ,
-an absolutely absolute Objective Reality that is mind-independent is a metaphysical idea which is conditioned upon a metaphysical-ontological Framework and System [FSR-FSK],
-scientific reality is empirically based and conditioned upon a human based scientific Framework and System [FSR-FSK],

To infer a metaphysical reality from a scientific reality is committing the fallacy of equivocation.
This is equivalent to fallaciously inferring an absolutely absolute Objective God [faith based] from an empirical based scientific FSK.

The fact is science, realist [not antirealists] scientists merely make an ASSUMPTION that there is a mind-independent objective reality out there. As an assumption, it has no significance to any scientific conclusion.
Antirealists do not have to make the assumption of "a mind-independent objective reality out there" yet can still do science, i.e. as long as it conform to the conditions of the scientific FSK.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

Well there are alternatives:
Structural realism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
Entity realism

Entity realism is the view that under conditions in which one can demonstrate impressive causal knowledge of a putative (unobservable) entity, such as knowledge that facilitates the manipulation of the entity and its use so as to intervene in other phenomena, one has good reason for realism regarding it

[Atla]

Thus it is very reasonable to assert there are,
...
without any absolutely absolute reality.

Well it's obviously not "very reasonable" according to Bard's summary either, not just according to ChatGPT's summary.

On a scale of 1 to 10 (from least reasonable to most reasonable), how reasonable is the idea according to science, that, while different species experience different species-dependent subjective realites, an objective reality does exist (although not fully experiencable by humans)?

The idea that while different species experience different species-dependent subjective realities, an objective reality does exist (although not fully experiencable by humans) is a complex one that has been debated by philosophers and scientists for centuries. While there is no definitive answer, there is evidence to support the idea that both subjective and objective realities exist.

Evidence for Subjective Realities

Evolutionary biology: The physical and cognitive structures of different species have evolved to allow them to perceive and interact with the world in ways that are specific to their needs and environments. This suggests that different species experience the world in different ways.

Neuroscience: The human brain is constantly filtering and interpreting sensory information, creating a subjective experience of the world that is unique to each individual. This suggests that our perceptions of reality are not direct reflections of the external world.

Evidence for Objective Reality

Physics: The laws of physics have been shown to be universal, applying equally to all objects and phenomena in the universe. This suggests that there is an underlying reality that is independent of our subjective experiences.

Mathematics: Mathematical concepts such as pi and e appear to have a real existence, independent of human minds. This suggests that there is an objective reality that is not limited to the physical world.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that both subjective and objective realities exist. Our subjective experiences are shaped by our biology, psychology, and culture, but they are also constrained by an objective reality that exists independently of us. This does not mean that we can ever fully know or experience this objective reality, but it does suggest that there is something more to the universe than our own subjective perceptions.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate the idea that an objective reality exists as a 7 or 8 out of 10. While there is no definitive proof, the evidence suggests that it is a reasonable possibility.

It says 7-8/10 for the idea that there is objective reality. Wonder what we are expecting to get out of these chatbots, they are merely describing a consensus.

[nemos]

I am, and that is a fact, regardless of the form in which I am. And this is a sufficient argument for absolute reality 100% - the existence of existence. I cannot say the truth about all of you, because I cannot be sure that you are not the fruit of my mind.

[Iwannaplato]

Is your version of antirealism/Kantian idealism free from metaphysical ideas:
Memory is about things in the past', for example.
IOW it seems implicit in your position on realists that they have a metaphysical assumption.
Is your position free of metaphysical assumptions?

[Atla]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is your version of antirealism/Kantian idealism free from metaphysical ideas:
Memory is about things in the past', for example.
IOW it seems implicit in your position on realists that they have a metaphysical assumption.
Is your position free of metaphysical assumptions?

Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are.
Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions of: What is it that exists; and What it is like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Yes, realists [philosophical and metaphysical] assume a metaphysical reality that is absolutely absolute mind-independent, i.e. something exists beyond human experience and the human conditions.
When it is reasoned and assumed to exist beyond the human conditions, there is no way one can then rely on the human condition [i.e. human reasoning and assuming] to confirm its reality in any way.
So to insist [depending on human conditions] a metaphysical reality [independent of human conditions] exists is a contradiction.

Anti-realists [Kantian] are free from any metaphysical assumption.
What anti-realists confirm as real is based upon solely empirical evidence [as experienced or possible to be experienced] with rationality grounded upon a specific human based FSK.
So, there is no assumption of anything existing beyond experience.
What is experienced is not something from an external objective reality but rather emerged t[present] within the conditions of reality [that emerged from t{prior} ] to be realized.

Why realists must assumed a metaphysical reality that is illusory is ultimately driven by psychological impulses from an evolutionary default of existential crisis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am, and that is a fact, regardless of the form in which I am. And this is a sufficient argument for absolute reality 100% - the existence of existence. I cannot say the truth about all of you, because I cannot be sure that you are not the fruit of my mind.

If according to your claim of absolute reality at 100%, where are all the billions of "I AM"s of the dead humans since humans first appear?
Whence has science ever proven such a "I AM" existed with 100% certainty?
Any purely first-person experience and claim is too subjective to be objective of any reasonable degrees.

It has been refuted, e.g. by Hume, there is no substantial objective "I AM" that exists independent of the human conditions.
There is only the empirical "I" that is conscious and think with the empirical physical human body.
When the physical human body is dead, the empirical "I Think" disappear.

I cannot say the truth about all of you, because I cannot be sure that you are not the fruit of my mind.

Obviously, any purely first-person experience and claim is too subjective to be objective of any reasonable degrees.

However, some reasonable sense of objectivity can be established when a collective of first-person-experiences are processed within a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] as supported with rational and critical thinking as in the scientific FSK.

Can you be sure when the science-chemistry FSK claim its 'fruit' i.e. 'water is H20' is objective [FSK] based on a collective-of-subjects?
Any average person will agree they are sure [not 100%] of such claims as objective which is based on a collective of subjectivity first-person's-experiences.
In this case, what is objectivity is grounded on inter-subjects' activity, i.e. intersubjectivity.

[Iwannaplato]

Anti-realists [Kantian] are free from any metaphysical assumption.
What anti-realists confirm as real is based upon solely empirical evidence [as experienced or possible to be experienced] with rationality grounded upon a specific human based FSK.

So, there is no assumption of anything existing beyond experience.

Well, that's a noun, 'experience,' rather than a sentence - most assumptions are in sentences, but it is likely a metaphysical assumption.
I mentioned for example that memories are of events and things that happened in a sequence. To do any analysis, to work empirically for example, we assume that there is time and that our memories of experiences are to some degree accurate.
Now you can say we know this because it has worked. But that is using memory to demonstrate that memory works or 'works'.

Any believe system has to have some foundational metaphysical assumptions.

I don't think that's damning, either. It's just a given, as far as I can tell that we are in that situation where we work with, whether conscious of it or not, metaphysical assumptions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anti-realists [Kantian] are free from any metaphysical assumption.
What anti-realists confirm as real is based upon solely empirical evidence [as experienced or possible to be experienced] with rationality grounded upon a specific human based FSK.

So, there is no assumption of anything existing beyond experience.

Well, that's a noun, 'experience,' rather than a sentence - most assumptions are in sentences, but it is likely a metaphysical assumption.
I mentioned for example that memories are of events and things that happened in a sequence. To do any analysis, to work empirically for example, we assume that there is time and that our memories of experiences are to some degree accurate.
Now you can say we know this because it has worked. But that is using memory to demonstrate that memory works or 'works'.

Any believe system has to have some foundational metaphysical assumptions.

I don't think that's damning, either. It's just a given, as far as I can tell that we are in that situation where we work with, whether conscious of it or not, metaphysical assumptions.

?? an assumption is also a noun.
Experiences only make sense in a subject-predicate sentence.

Time in general is never an assumption but an empirical fact conditioned within the science-physics FSK.

Memory per se is not relevant to this particular issue at all.

When one experienced "water is H20" it is based on direct observations conditioned within a specific human based science-chemistry FSK [objective].
In this case, there is no need to assume there exists 'metaphysical water' that exist independent of the FSK and human conditions.
There is no reference to any memory of past experiences.

On the other hand, the philosophical realists assume 'water' exists regardless of any human conditions.
The question of memory is irrelevant in this case.
When p-realists assume the moon existed before humans or after humans are gone, there is no question of 'memory' before and after humans existed.

What is critical to the above issue is not any memory of the past, but that the fact of past experiences of the collective [over billion of years] within humanity as encoded in the DNA of all humans that set the human conditions that ground whatever is reality [human based FSK].
This [unconscious activities] has nothing to do with memory per se, i.e. related to triggering of information to consciousness or some conscious recall of a posteriori information.

[Atla]

Is your version of antirealism/Kantian idealism free from metaphysical ideas:
Memory is about things in the past', for example.
IOW it seems implicit in your position on realists that they have a metaphysical assumption.
Is your position free of metaphysical assumptions?

Metaphysics studies questions related to what it is for something to exist and what types of existence there are.
Metaphysics seeks to answer, in an abstract and fully general manner, the questions of: What is it that exists; and What it is like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Yes, realists [philosophical and metaphysical] assume a metaphysical reality that is absolutely absolute mind-independent, i.e. something exists beyond human experience and the human conditions.
When it is reasoned and assumed to exist beyond the human conditions, there is no way one can then rely on the human condition [i.e. human reasoning and assuming] to confirm its reality in any way.
So to insist [depending on human conditions] a metaphysical reality [independent of human conditions] exists is a contradiction.

Anti-realists [Kantian] are free from any metaphysical assumption.
What anti-realists confirm as real is based upon solely empirical evidence [as experienced or possible to be experienced] with rationality grounded upon a specific human based FSK.
So, there is no assumption of anything existing beyond experience.
What is experienced is not something from an external objective reality but rather emerged t[present] within the conditions of reality [that emerged from t{prior} ] to be realized.

Why realists must assumed a metaphysical reality that is illusory is ultimately driven by psychological impulses from an evolutionary default of existential crisis.

LOL. Both assuming and not assuming the existence of things are metaphysical assumptions, as reality is ultimately neutral, it is "between" or "beyond" or rather "before" the dichotomy of existence and non-existence.

One of the major flaws of Buddhism, and of your misinterpretation of Kant, is that it is too attached to non-existence.

And if you are going with not assuming things, you should go further and also not assume other minds. And therefore also not assume any intersubjectivity. Not assume anything where the concept of a 'mind' can even come up. Not assume space and time. You are left as a philosophical cripple in a philosophical stance that is even less than solipsism.

Because if you are going with science, then the correct thing IS to assume a mind-independent part of the world, in addition to a mind-dependent part of the world. That's what science says. That's why the chatbots keep disagreeing with you.

[Iwannaplato]

?? an assumption is also a noun.

Experiences only make sense in a subject-predicate sentence.

Right. I was pointing out that when you mentioned a noun, experiences, which is what empricism is dependent on (and rationalism for that matter) there is a subject predicate assumption in there).

Time in general is never an assumption but an empirical fact conditioned within the science-physics FSK.

Memory per se is not relevant to this particular issue at all.

That one can trust memory to some degree is an assumption.

What is critical to the above issue is not any memory of the past, but that the fact of past experiences of the collective [over billion of years] within humanity as encoded in the DNA of all humans that set the human conditions that ground whatever is reality [human based FSK].

Memory of the past is utterly critical to any empirical, deductive, abductive process. Any of them. Otherwise all you have is now and this moment's experience. To draw any conclusion, you need to believe that memory is to some degree accurate AND that it reflects what happened one second ago - in a deduction, in emprical experimentation, and so on.

There are a number of related metaphysical assumpions:
I can to some degree trust memory and it is about past events. (example, I am remembering correctly earlier stages in my thinking, my reasoning, my experiment. Another example, This moment is connected to past moments.)
Reality is coherent (or experience is to some degree coherent.


It's a bit like we cannot experience another person's consciousness, their experiencing.
But unless you are a solipsist, you assume that they are, like you, experiencers.

Every belief system has metaphysical beliefs that cannot be demonstrated empirically.

And the problem for empiricism (well one of them) is that you can't turn to experience to prove experience because that just assumes experience is coherent and memories are correct and there is or was something beyond this moment and so on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

?? an assumption is also a noun.

Experiences only make sense in a subject-predicate sentence.

Right. I was pointing out that when you mentioned a noun, experiences, which is what empricism is dependent on (and rationalism for that matter) there is a subject predicate assumption in there).

Time in general is never an assumption but an empirical fact conditioned within the science-physics FSK.

Memory per se is not relevant to this particular issue at all.

That one can trust memory to some degree is an assumption.

What is critical to the above issue is not any memory of the past, but that the fact of past experiences of the collective [over billion of years] within humanity as encoded in the DNA of all humans that set the human conditions that ground whatever is reality [human based FSK].

Memory of the past is utterly critical to any empirical, deductive, abductive process. Any of them. Otherwise all you have is now and this moment's experience. To draw any conclusion, you need to believe that memory is to some degree accurate AND that it reflects what happened one second ago - in a deduction, in emprical experimentation, and so on.

There are a number of related metaphysical assumpions:
I can to some degree trust memory and it is about past events. (example, I am remembering correctly earlier stages in my thinking, my reasoning, my experiment. Another example, This moment is connected to past moments.)
Reality is coherent (or experience is to some degree coherent.


It's a bit like we cannot experience another person's consciousness, their experiencing.
But unless you are a solipsist, you assume that they are, like you, experiencers.

Every belief system has metaphysical beliefs that cannot be demonstrated empirically.

And the problem for empiricism (well one of them) is that you can't turn to experience to prove experience because that just assumes experience is coherent and memories are correct and there is or was something beyond this moment and so on.

This memory issue is irrelevant as an assumption in this particular case.

The main point of contention is
Philosophical Realists make the claim the there are mind-independent things and I claimed, at most it is an assumption within the scientific FSK.

• Assumption 1
  A physical universe exists that operates independently of our perceptions.
  https://www.shawndove.com/assumptions-of-science/

AntiRealists [Kant] do not make the above assumptions at all.

The question of whether every scientists make assumptions other than the above is a off topic and irrelevant.

Scientists do not make any assumption that memory of the past is reliable.
Rather scientists understand the fact that memory of the past is unreliable which is more conservative.
With the understanding of the above unreliability of memory, whatever they do will be processed within the conditions of the scientific FSK as countered check by peers to eliminate any elements of the unreliability of past memories [whatever].

What happened a second ago as memory? what about nanoseconds ago and at what point is an event not considered a memory element.

To topic;

The main point of contention is
Philosophical Realists make the claim the there are mind-independent things and I claimed, at most it is an assumption within the scientific FSK.

AntiRealists [Kant] do not make the above assumptions at all.

As such, the claim by a philosophical realist is contradictory.
Any claim of 95% certainty is merely a certainty of an illusion.

[Atla]

?? an assumption is also a noun.

Experiences only make sense in a subject-predicate sentence.

Right. I was pointing out that when you mentioned a noun, experiences, which is what empricism is dependent on (and rationalism for that matter) there is a subject predicate assumption in there).

Time in general is never an assumption but an empirical fact conditioned within the science-physics FSK.

Memory per se is not relevant to this particular issue at all.

That one can trust memory to some degree is an assumption.

What is critical to the above issue is not any memory of the past, but that the fact of past experiences of the collective [over billion of years] within humanity as encoded in the DNA of all humans that set the human conditions that ground whatever is reality [human based FSK].

Memory of the past is utterly critical to any empirical, deductive, abductive process. Any of them. Otherwise all you have is now and this moment's experience. To draw any conclusion, you need to believe that memory is to some degree accurate AND that it reflects what happened one second ago - in a deduction, in emprical experimentation, and so on.

There are a number of related metaphysical assumpions:
I can to some degree trust memory and it is about past events. (example, I am remembering correctly earlier stages in my thinking, my reasoning, my experiment. Another example, This moment is connected to past moments.)
Reality is coherent (or experience is to some degree coherent.


It's a bit like we cannot experience another person's consciousness, their experiencing.
But unless you are a solipsist, you assume that they are, like you, experiencers.

Every belief system has metaphysical beliefs that cannot be demonstrated empirically.

And the problem for empiricism (well one of them) is that you can't turn to experience to prove experience because that just assumes experience is coherent and memories are correct and there is or was something beyond this moment and so on.

This memory issue is irrelevant as an assumption in this particular case.

The main point of contention is
Philosophical Realists make the claim the there are mind-independent things and I claimed, at most it is an assumption within the scientific FSK.

• Assumption 1
  A physical universe exists that operates independently of our perceptions.
  https://www.shawndove.com/assumptions-of-science/

AntiRealists [Kant] do not make the above assumptions at all.

The question of whether every scientists make assumptions other than the above is a off topic and irrelevant.

Scientists do not make any assumption that memory of the past is reliable.
Rather scientists understand the fact that memory of the past is unreliable which is more conservative.
With the understanding of the above unreliability of memory, whatever they do will be processed within the conditions of the scientific FSK as countered check by peers to eliminate any elements of the unreliability of past memories [whatever].

What happened a second ago as memory? what about nanoseconds ago and at what point is an event not considered a memory element.

To topic;

The main point of contention is
Philosophical Realists make the claim the there are mind-independent things and I claimed, at most it is an assumption within the scientific FSK.

AntiRealists [Kant] do not make the above assumptions at all.

As such, the claim by a philosophical realist is contradictory.
Any claim of 95% certainty is merely a certainty of an illusion.

We can only have an understanding of unreliable memory, when it is contrasted with an idea of a fairly (over 95%) reliable objective reality, which is what science does.