Allah is a logical entity.
-
We are sometimes deceived, therefore we could always be deceived!
Have you ever thought you heard something, but there was nothing there? Have you ever thought you saw someone in the corner of your eye, and when you looked there was no person there? Have you ever looked at an illusion and been deceived that one line was longer than the other, but really it wasn't? When you look down from a high building on people, do they, appear small like ants? Aren't there thousands of occasions when we do mis-perceive?For a mathemtician you really write execellent prose!-)
And the content of the writing was very engaging...hope to read more soon -)Regards,
I will tell Ken Ward who wrote those words the next time that I speak to him. )
The text is part his, mine, a few other people, and famous quotes to make it appear more intelligent. P -
So now we have a fixed framwork. Like any other computer interpretator. The rest is interpretation of that framework done by the individual program itself. To ask me if something can be created out of nothing, is so mindless it's funny. We cannot enter a state of nothingness, without leaving the body. And the minute we do that, the very experiment becomes void, due to the fact that we are no longer in the framwork we set out to prove/disprove.
Thus "something can't come of nothing" is a logically objective statement.
BTW, I hope your friend Vivek cited his work because otherwise there are so many blatant acts of plagarism there it's not funny.
-
-
And after reading that essay
- it's full of contradictions
- it's typical eastern relativistic philosophy made to confuse rather than answer
- it's built purely upon conjecture
- it's pseudo-science
- it's another tool to obfuscate the topic at hand.
So I implore you once again to remain on topic and not post essays about things that work real nice in movies (The Matrix) but have no relevance to reality. Thank you.
-
And I hope you will be able to "meet" me all over again so to speak, and forget about this little farce.
Okay no problem. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask you to reply to questions in your own words, and not cut and pastes. It's highly annoying to be carrying on this 'debate' or reading it, when a question is asked and the answer is bzzzt fttt mel funktion cut & paste . If you have read all these articles, you must understand them right? Otherwise I'll just email the person who wrote the article if I'm that bothered. Thank you for your understanding.
-
- it's full of contradictions
- it's typical eastern relativistic philosophy made to confuse rather than answer
- it's built purely upon conjecture
- it's pseudo-science
- it's another tool to obfuscate the topic at hand.
Could you bring forth some of it?
So I implore you once again to remain on topic and not post essays about things that work real nice in movies (The Matrix) but have no relevance to reality. Thank you.
It was written in 98. and now the table just turned. you will have to prove why it doesnt. I have stated my oppinion. And according to your own rules, it us unaccetable just to state that you disagree. and that is all that you do here.
-
Otherwise I'll just email the person who wrote the article if I'm that bothered. Thank you for your understanding.
Please do, Ken loves mail and he will confirm instantly who was involved with the project it is taken from.
-
Please do, Ken loves mail and he will confirm instantly who was involved with the project it is taken from.
Does Vivek love mail as well? You perhaps missed the point, but nevermind. Thanks for the help.
-
The Eastern philosophers say that our physical world around us is nothing but an illusion, a dream. Whatever we see, we feel, we do and we think are all done in a state of trance. But The Reality is completely different.
Conjecture.
They also say that there resides a unique energy in every living organism and they call it by the name of The Aatma (The Soul).
Conjecture.
This soul cannot feel, cannot think, cannot see, cannot perform any work. They do not have any finite shape, nor have any mass, nor occupy any space. They cannot die. They just exist. But they have only one power The Will Power.
Contradiction.
Let us consider a picture of a sphere intersecting a plane. To any living two dimensional living object on this plane, the sphere will only appear as a circle (which gets projected on the plane). To this object The Reality is the circle. But is that the Absolute Reality? No, the Absolute Reality is the sphere. It is only limitation impressed by space that binds the living object on the plane from visualizing further.
Plagarism. See Flatlanders.
Also, by confirming an 'objective reality', he's agreeing with logic being objective. !
But one can never take Total Control over his mind ----- if he does so, then he would be able to recognize Himself and knowing The Ultimate Truth, he would escape from the Physical Dimensions and enter into The Absolute Reality.
Conjecture.
But for a simple common man, the magnanimity of this Reality remains unknown. He tries to reason out what he observes around him and through continuous formulation of axioms, assumptions, postulates and constructing different theories explaining the behavior of things around him, he tries to conceive his reality. Like little drops of rain which add up to a boundless deep ocean, the thoughts of hundreds of men over thousands of years, give birth to philosophy and logic and hence a path leading towards The Reality.
The concepts and theories and thoughts streaming through the human brains give birth to philosophy, which when refined and researched, get established in the rigid form of logic. But when these thoughts and theories get a complete analytic proof, then it takes the form of The Ultimate Truth, the most perfect reflection of The Absolute Reality ---- Mathematics.
"Mathematics as an expression of the human mind reflects the active will, the contemplative reason, and the desire for aesthetic perfection. Its basic elements are logic and intuition, analysis and construction, generality and individuality. Though different traditions may emphasize different aspects, it is only the interplay of these antithetic forces and the struggle for their synthesis that constitutes the life, usefulness and the supreme value of mathematical science."
(Quoted from 'What is Mathematics?' by Courant & Robbins)"Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty -- a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting and music, yet, sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as the greatest art can show."
"Remote from human passions, remote even from the pitiful facts of nature, the generations have gradually created an ordered cosmos, where pure thought can dwell as in its natural home, and where one, at least, of our nobler impulses can escape from the dreary exile of the actual world."
(Both the above quotations are from the essay 'The Study of Mathematics' by Bertrand Russell)Everything in this materialistic world is dependent on space and time. Laws of economics, geography, political sciences and even the worshipped laws of the physical sciences may not hold their present discovered truths one day. But those beautiful equations originating from hardcore logic will always dictate human ways of thinking and techno scientific inventions through all the ages. If in a different universe, Newton's Law changes to F=ma^6 then almost all the present physical laws would break down. But the elements in the set of the Real Numbers will always obey the Associative, Commutative and Distributive Laws, no matter what. This is the only field which is completely independent of the others. It is only logical thinking and hence strong human reasoning and philosophy that has led all the people and the scientists over thousands of years to formulate laws and construct axioms and postulates. Nothing other than the complete annihilation of the human race can cease this process of human thinking and hence advancement of philosophy, logic and mathematics. The truth suggested by them can be reformed but the earlier proofs can never be disregarded or discarded completely.
Emotions are nothing but secretion of different hormones from the different glands and their flow into the brain through the bloodstream. This may sound very unromantic, but this is the most scientific truth acquired from detailed study of the human anatomy. But still these emotions have enough power to make us forget The Truth and push us more and more into the dark world of The Illusion. The hormones like adrenaline, testosterone, estrogen and progesterone do nothing but distract us from our objective in life and make us dwell into our primitive wild nature.
Prove If a + b = a + c then b = c
The Proof
The Field Axiom 5 (The existence of negatives) states that " For every real number x there is a real number y such that x + y = 0 ."
We here choose a number 'y' such that y + a = 0 ...............(1)
Therefore, as it is given that a + b = a + c, we can write
y + (a + b) = y + (a + c) ..............(2)From the Associative Law (Field Axiom 2) we can write from (2)
(y + a) + b = (y + a) + c ...............(3)
But from our earlier condition (1), it follows from (3). that
0 + b = 0 + c ..............(4)
The Field Axiom 4 states that " There exists a real number '0' such that for every real x, x + 0 = x ."
Therefore, we can write from (4),
b = cHence Proved.
In our common practice we would have just cancelled out 'a' from the left and right hand sides of the given equation and reach the conclusion, but here we have tried to show the rigorous and rigid logical route to this obvious conclusion.
Argues for my point, not yours.
-
But let me ask any of you this. Do we have a soul. If so, where is it?
Define "soul" first. Every single person seems to have their own definition of what a "soul" is so I can't really answer that unless you tell me what you think a soul is/entails.
Now why would everyone have their own defintion of something most agree that we have? could this be because what we have is a consensus reality more than anything else?
To continue our debate.
Look. Science has to use their subjective tools, to define an objective matter. Even IF there is an objective reality, wich I'm not ruling out is possible along a line of other possabilities. Does it matter? All we have to check it out with is subjective senses.
Science has to redefine their understanding of everything constantly. Why?
So to claim that somewhere down there where science can go no further, and the final definition of something has been found, there is objective reality is no more real than the socalled "eastern philosophy"
30 years ago everybody knew that the theory of relativity was true. In fact it was iron clad. Now people aren't so sure anymore.
In other words, due to our subjective nature, talking about an objective reality is futile because we only have subjective tools to see if it is so or not.
-
They also say that there resides a unique energy in every living organism and they call it by the name of The Aatma (The Soul).
Conjecture.
The soul is conjecture?
This soul cannot feel, cannot think, cannot see, cannot perform any work. They do not have any finite shape, nor have any mass, nor occupy any space. They cannot die. They just exist. But they have only one power The Will Power
Contradiction..explain
Let us consider a picture of a sphere intersecting a plane. To any living two dimensional living object on this plane, the sphere will only appear as a circle (which gets projected on the plane). To this object The Reality is the circle. But is that the Absolute Reality? No, the Absolute Reality is the sphere. It is only limitation impressed by space that binds the living object on the plane from visualizing further. Plagarism. See Flatlanders.
then so is quoting Qur'aan. Fine if we are not to quote anything. dont you do it either.
Also, by confirming an 'objective reality', he's agreeing with logic being objective. !
interpretation
But one can never take Total Control over his mind ----- if he does so, then he would be able to recognize Himself and knowing The Ultimate Truth, he would escape from the Physical Dimensions and enter into The Absolute Reality.
Conjecture.
proove it
Argues for my point, not yours.
Thus I posted 2 essay's. Point being that there are viewpoint's and nothing else. In a debate like this there are no objective evidence. How would you produce it?
-
In other words, due to our subjective nature, talking about an objective reality is futile because we only have subjective tools to see if it is so or not.
I think this is the crux of the matter isn't it? As neo says we have subjective interpretation of reality. If that is the case then how will we ever know the objective reality (even if it exists)?
As for Premise and Framework - once you agree on a Framework or Premise then you can't prove anything outside of that Framework or premise can you? or can you?
Regards,
-
We are sometimes deceived, therefore we could always be deceived!
Logically objective statement. !
We know things are there because science tell's us that
Light hits the retina of the eye.
And this changes the chemical composition of the eye.
And this makes electricity travel along a nerve, the Optic Nerve.
And this goes to a part of the brain.
And then something happens and we see the thing.
That's what happens according to science.According to science "We do not respond to the thing, but to electrical and chemical events in the brain."
Pseudo-scientific b.s. We do respond to the stimulus, as stated by the first cause in your argument.
So, do we really respond to a thing? Don't we respond' only the electrical and chemical events, that occur in the brain and nerves, and not to the alleged real object?
The external stimuli causes said electrical/chemical event, which in turn is caused by something else, etc. etc. so on and so forth.
Therefore, it is not things we are experiencing but chemical and electrical reactions. We don't see things directly. We see via chemical and electrical reactions in eyes, nerves and bits of brain. This appears to be true because
Without eyes, we don't see.
Without Optic Nerves we don't see.
Without certain bits of the brain, we don't see.You're asserting seeing something "directly" as 'being' it which couldn't be further from scientific truth. Again, pseudo scientific nonsense.
So we never directly see what is out there, according to science.
According to your branch of pseudo-science, which isn't really science at all.
Suppose someone were to put electrodes in our brains, and stimulate the visual part of our brains mimicking the impulses we normally receive. Would we see? Definitely we would. But we wouldn't be seeing what is there outside. We wouldn't be seeing, what is real. We'd be seeing because some electricity was put in our brain, and it would look the same as our real objects!
The Matrix is a great movie however it is not a basis for reality. Henceforth I shall ignore all matrix related philosophies because they are a waste of my time.
Science rushed off to discover these primary qualities and developed concepts like mass which were supposed to describe the real object. However, pretty soon, we realised that the so called primary qualities were just as much secondary as colour and the rest! Although we can specify conditions and measuring instruments which largely give us consistent results, it is a human being who is perceiving the measuring instruments and their reaction on him or her. We cannot know the real object apart from our perception of it. A question like, 'What does something look like when no one is looking at it?' is clearly nonsense, and unanswerable, as is a demand to prove that something can come out of nothing.
More pseudo-scientific bullshit. If what you're asserting is true than the universe began 50,000 or so years ago when Man first realised it could think and observe. Reality is independent of perception.
We naively think things are matter or they are mind. Mental things are thoughts, or ideas. They contrast with matter.
No. This is a shortcomming of your understanding of what the disparity between mind and matter is. Mind is thought, matter is reality. The two are linked, but because the mind employes filters its conception of reality has te possibility of being skewed, but this does not mean that matter changes.
If mind and matter are totally different - how can one affect the other?
Like I said, this is a shortcomming in your understanding of the concept, nothing more.
Similarly, how do you know that, a tree, for example, exists when no one is looking at it?
Our knowledge of the tree is irrespective of its existence.
It is subjective. Does this mean it is merely a matter of taste!
Lol, again we get back to this. Look, if you want to prove that everything is subjective you're going to have to do so logically and not through philosophies of the Matrix or arguments based on the fact that reality is subjective in the first place.
Does anything exist when no one is experiencing it? How could you answer 'Yes!' to this question? How could you know?
Descartes answered that quite neatly.
I do not like subjectivism in it's normal shape, even though it has won many arguments.
Lol, like this one? lol Subjectivism is fun to laugh at, but that's all.
I believe that some concepts are essential parts of certain systems, and some concepts appear to be almost absolutes.
So why the hell are you in the 'logic is subjective' bandwagon when you openly admit to the absolute laws of nature? ?
-
The soul is conjecture?
Yes.
This soul cannot feel, cannot think, cannot see, cannot perform any work. They do not have any finite shape, nor have any mass, nor occupy any space. They cannot die. They just exist. But they have only one power The Will Power
Contradiction..If the soul cannot perform any work then they cannot have will because having a will entails work.
then so is quoting Qur'aan. Fine if we are not to quote anything. dont you do it either.
- I didn't quote the Qur'an.
- If I do quote it, I always cite it.
interpretation
No. English 101.
proove it
Burden of proof lies on the one making the positive statement; he's saying we can escape and all that hoohaa, he has to prove how.
Thus I posted 2 essay's. Point being that there are viewpoint's and nothing else. In a debate like this there are no objective evidence. How would you produce it?
roll
-
Premise 1 the Qur?an is the irrefutable word of Allah (if you have problems with this please stop reading now).
Premise 2 the Qur?an tells us to reason for ourselves so that we may understand the difference between right and wrong, and not to accept anything at ?face value?; basically this means we are to not follow anything blindly and this would include the Qur?an itself (this is a premise, so if you wish to question this make another thread for it titled "am I supposed to follow the Qur'an blindly?" but don?t bring it up in this thread).
So we are not to follow blindly what you call the irrefutable word's of God`? We cannot trust God?
So, to wit, if something is verifiable through reason/logic then it is logical/reasonable.
At this point a definition of logic/reason would be nice. As we know for a fact that everything we sense and feel is but chemichal reaction and electrical pulses. And we know for a fact that we do not see with our eye's but the backside of our brain, and as we know that we can simulate those experiences to make people belive they experience something that is not happening at all. What can we use as a tool of measure, for this logic/reason that is trustworthy?
According to premise 2, we are to reason all our actions before we commit ourselves to them. What this means is we are to analyse our actions and verify, to the best of our abilities, that what we are doing is ?right? (?truth? in logical terminology). This also implies that all of our actions are subject to reason and thus has a consequence that is either right (if reasonable) or wrong (if unreasonable). Therefore before we do something, even if it is stated in the Qur?an, we have to question why we are doing it and verify that it is ?right?. This means that all of our actions, as dictated by the Qur?an, are reasonable and logical (Qur?an => irrefutable word of Allah => Allah always right). Thus it can be concluded that the Qur?an is a logical piece of text. ).
But we just can't trust him and take his word for it.
If the text itself is logical then the writer of the text must also be logical.
How can a text be logical that asks us to take it's word for it being the irrefutable word of God. Yet we have to not trust it. However, if we go and "prove" all the things in at and follow them it is good. But just doing it is bad.
If the Qur?an is a reasonable piece of text, then it necessarily follows that it came from a reasonable source ? if this source is Allah then it necessary follows that Allah is a reasonable entity.
conjeture. Because you assume that Qur'aan is a reasonable piece of text. But how can it be, when you on one hand is asked to belive in it, but on the other is asked to be sceptical about it? On one hand we're told that the believers will know it is all from their lord. On the other we are told that we have to verify that it is. then what is there to belive?
Note this does not mean that us humans well ever fully understand Allah or be able to decipher Allah?s intentions, all it means is Allah is logical.
You come to this conclution based on your own premise 1. Is that logic/reason. To put up you'r own premises as proof?
Then what am I doint that you're not? -
We know things are there because science tell's us that
Light hits the retina of the eye.
And this changes the chemical composition of the eye.
And this makes electricity travel along a nerve, the Optic Nerve.
And this goes to a part of the brain.
And then something happens and we see the thing.
That's what happens according to science.According to science "We do not respond to the thing, but to electrical and chemical events in the brain."
Pseudo-scientific b.s. We do respond to the stimulus, as stated by the first cause in your argument.
read it again. that is excactly what it says. you just agreed with me.
Besides what is pseudo science?The external stimuli causes said electrical/chemical event, which in turn is caused by something else, etc. etc. so on and so forth.
prove this please. prove that the object you think create the stimuli, does exist. How can you when all you have to do it with is your brain telling you that it's real. Dream are real to, does this mean that when we dream we are in fact in a whole new physical universe?
Therefore, it is not things we are experiencing but chemical and electrical reactions. We don't see things directly. We see via chemical and electrical reactions in eyes, nerves and bits of brain. This appears to be true because
Without eyes, we don't see.
Without Optic Nerves we don't see.
Without certain bits of the brain, we don't seeYou're asserting seeing something "directly" as 'being' it which couldn't be further from scientific truth. Again, pseudo scientific nonsense.
No that is not what it is saing. Try to read it again, and take you'r time. read it as many times as you need.
So we never directly see what is out there, according to science.
According to your branch of pseudo-science, which isn't really science at all.
http//www.pasadenaeye.com/faq/faq15/faq15_text.html
awww...all the scientist's working in the field of vision will be sorry to hear so. Besides. you know. Once round earth was pseude science too.
The Matrix is a great movie however it is not a basis for reality. Henceforth I shall ignore all matrix related philosophies because they are a waste of my time.
this is written before the matrix. try again
More pseudo-scientific bullshit. If what you're asserting is true than the universe began 50,000 or so years ago when Man first realised it could think and observe. Reality is independent of perception.
You assume that we have been thinking for some 50.000 years? how do you know?
is a shortcomming in your understanding of the concept, nothing more.
So why the hell are you in the 'logic is subjective' bandwagon when you openly admit to the absolute laws of nature? ?
We have obsered something that would seem as absoluts. Within the time we have known of absolutes several of them have been proved false over and over again. Wich strongly imply that we are unable to truely define them, thus it is futile to waste our time with it. Im not arguing for either, but both! is it that hard to understand?
-
In other words, due to our subjective nature, talking about an objective reality is futile because we only have subjective tools to see if it is so or not.
I think this is the crux of the matter isn't it? As neo says we have subjective interpretation of reality. If that is the case then how will we ever know the objective reality (even if it exists)?
As for Premise and Framework - once you agree on a Framework or Premise then you can't prove anything outside of that Framework or premise can you? or can you?
Regards,
Then what we have is a consensus reality. We agree on what is true and what isn't. But that is hardly an objective truth. Just look at government's- Just because we agree on something, does not make it right.
-
Premise 1 the Qur?an is the irrefutable word of Allah (if you have problems with this please stop reading now).
Premise 1 is FAULTY wink
The Framework is skewed winkAnd therefore rest of that article is a house of cards! -)
Regards,
-
So we are not to follow blindly what you call the irrefutable word's of God`? We cannot trust God?
Do you read the quran?
1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for.
The verse above among others is what the quote below is drawing from
According to premise 2, we are to reason all our actions before we commit ourselves to them. What this means is we are to analyse our actions and verify, to the best of our abilities, that what we are doing is ?right? (?truth? in logical terminology). This also implies that all of our actions are subject to reason and thus has a consequence that is either right (if reasonable) or wrong (if unreasonable). Therefore before we do something, even if it is stated in the Qur?an, we have to question why we are doing it and verify that it is ?right?. This means that all of our actions, as dictated by the Qur?an, are reasonable and logical
Pseudo-scientific b.s. We do respond to the stimulus, as stated by the first cause in your argument.
Light hits the retina of the eye.
prove this please. prove that the object you think create the stimuli, does exist. How can you when all you have to do it with is your brain telling you that it's real. Dream are real to, does this mean that when we dream we are in fact in a whole new physical universe?
Perception is independent of reality as neo said in his post you are quoting from. You are the one confused as you think that dreams and real life are the same thing...as nothing is real and everything is fantasy and a dreamworld where you can see what you want...it's called projecting your fantasies onto what others are saying...Row row row your boat...
How can a text be logical that asks us to take it's word for it being the irrefutable word of God. Yet we have to not trust it. However, if we go and "prove" all the things in at and follow them it is good. But just doing it is bad.
The quran asks you to use reason, which if you have read it, is abundantly clear. All your actions/thoughts etc you are responsible for. You must verify to the best of your ability and then follow. God Himself has put the quran up for verification. It gives a challenge to people to check for contradictions, what proof of a logical text! (lmk if you need verse numbers). This is to increase capacity for logical and clear thinking in a human which helps in filtering bs like pseudo science amongst other things...
But we just can't trust him and take his word for it.
If you need some advice 1736 comes to mind, though there are plenty of blind following religions out there if this doesn't suit your fancy.
conjeture. Because you assume that Qur'aan is a reasonable piece of text. But how can it be, when you on one hand is asked to belive in it, but on the other is asked to be sceptical about it? On one hand we're told that the believers will know it is all from their lord. On the other we are told that we have to verify that it is. then what is there to belive?
Believe in it after you have ascertained to the best of your ability using rational and logical thought (which btw all humans have to, otherwise they end up thinking dreams are reality and reality are dreams). How will the believers know it is from their Lord? Using the same capacity of thought present in all humans unless they choose to follow flights of fancy.
awww...all the scientist's working in the field of vision will be sorry to hear so. Besides. you know. Once round earth was pseude science too.
They will be sorry to hear that the stimuli is external? From your own link
The human eye is remarkable. It accommodates to changing lighting conditions and focuses light rays originating from various distances from the eye. When all of the components of the eye function properly, light is converted to impulses and conveyed to the brain where an image is perceived.
You assume that we have been thinking for some 50.000 years? how do you know?
Missed the point perhaps?
We have obsered something that would seem as absoluts. Within the time we have known of absolutes several of them have been proved false over and over again. Wich strongly imply that we are unable to truely define them, thus it is futile to waste our time with it. Im not arguing for either, but both! is it that hard to understand?
What we have observed while 'seeing' you post is that you are arguing for everything is subjective as per your own quotes. If we can't comprehend the full extent of reality due to our shortcomings does that mean it does not exist? What both are you arguing for? There is reality and objective logic but everything is subjective? Dear God.
edited to correct
-
The quran asks you to use reason, which if you have read it, is abundantly clear. All your actions/thoughts etc you are responsible for. You must verify to the best of your ability and then follow. God Himself has put the quran up for verification. It gives a challenge to people to check for contradictions,
There are no contradictions in Bhagavad Gita, there are no contradictions in one of Shakepears's sonnets, there are no contradictions in Mozart piano concerto no 23 - But what does that prove? It proves nothing about Divine origin of Scripture. Scripture came through a human being and there is no way of getting around this. You either believe scripture to be God's word or you don't.
what proof of a logical text! (lmk if you need verse numbers).
What a LOGICAL conclusion! Euclids Textbook is a very logical text! What does that prove? nothing. If a text appears to be logical that is because our REASONING is tied to our LANGUAGE, there is no way of getting around this!
This is to increase capacity for logical and clear thinking in a human which helps in filtering bs like pseudo science amongst other things...
Is there such thing as FALSE SCIENCE? Science is empirical. If there is no observational data then that can't be science, can it?
Believe in it after you have ascertained to the best of your ability using rational and logical thought...
Why do you still have to believe in it if you have LOGICAL proof?
How will the believers know it is from their Lord? Using the same capacity of thought present in all humans unless they choose to follow flights of fancy.
Human capacity of thought once believed that earth was flat and was supported on a back of a giant turtle.
Human capacity to know changes continually. There is no certainty in human knowledge. As neo says our interpretation of reality is subjective. If that is the case then we will never know perhaps what objective reality is.
What we have observed while 'seeing' you post is that you are arguing for everything is subjective as per your own quotes. If we can't comprehend the full extent of reality due to our shortcomings does that mean it does not exist?
How will we know if it exists if our interpretation of reality is subjective.
Regards,