In the previous posts, I asked whether questions or observations can create reality, or whether they instead form an intersection where reality appears.
I now want to sharpen the issue.
Many discussions seem to assume that there is a fully formed, objective structure of reality “out there,” and observation merely reveals it.
But what if objectivity itself is not prior to observation, and instead emerges through repeated, shared intersections of perspectives?
In that case, observation would not be a causal force, nor a passive recording device, but a stabilizing process.
My question is simple but uncomfortable:
Can we meaningfully talk about a “purely objective structure” without already presupposing a standpoint from which it is identified as such?
I’m curious where others locate objectivity: before observation, after it, or nowhere at all.
If objectivity requires the removal of all standpoints, who or what is left to recognize it as “objective”?
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. The idea of scientific testing, and the brain, only exists within the framework where I assume the world has coherence and the sensory experiences I remember having are not just random fabrications. I didn’t mean to say everything I exploring or remember experiencing must be completely true, just it must have rules I can learn that let me predict it, otherwise if it truly is random, the effect of my actions would also be random, and I wouldn’t be able to make any intentional actions.