Reality - Version 0.2

This time I want to discuss subjective reality versus objective reality.

In Reality - Version 0.0 I suggested:

  1. First there is nothing.
  2. Secondly inside this nothing there is infinity.
  3. It is infinity that fills the void of nothing.

In Reality - Version 0.1 I suggested :

  1. Before US there is the metaspace.
  2. Inside the metaspace there is the physical space.
  3. It is metaspace that transcends the physical space.

In Reality - Version 0.2 I am suggesting:

  1. Laid out before us there is the objective.
  2. Inside the objective is the subjective.
  3. The difference between the objective and the subjective is infinitely relative.

One question that comes to mind is:

How do we know when to accept objective reality established and accepted through science and philosophy?

Objective reality from the human point of view is confined to the knowledge that we have accumulated about it. Objective reality is relative to how true what we know about reality is.

Subjective reality then it seems is connected to objective reality through the concept of being relative. It is the absolute it seems that keeps illuding us. Relative reality and absolute reality is something that I will discuss in the future however what I am suggesting here is that no matter what you call reality it is connected to all the other versions that everyone has come up with through the concept of differences.

Belief then must be the basis for subjective reality. I suggest belief is also the basis of objective reality for the time being.

My thoughts are that reality itself will undergo more iterations before we arrive at the truth.

Hopefully I do not start a p-war here . . .


The Matrix

In the movie: The Matrix; Morpheus asks Neo:

What is real ? . .

. . . How do you define real ? . .

. . . If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see . . .

. . . then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

And again I pose the question:

How do we know when to accept objective reality established and accepted through science and philosophy?

Indeed, I mean as the absolute truth.

Objective reality refers to the reality outside your mind. Essentially we all live in the same world.
Every person is able, in principle, to verify every aspect of the objective reality.

Anything that cannot be verified in this way is not part of the objective reality.

Every person that is viewing a particular object at any given instant each have a different perspective of that object . . .

Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. Essentially we all live in different worlds.
Only you are able, in principle, to think about the aspects of your subjective reality.

Anything that can be thought of in this way is a part of your subjective reality.

Only one person who is viewing a particular object at any given instant has a unique perspective of that object . . .


I am aware of at least two mistakes in the original post at the time I write this . . . how should I feel about this?

I tell you that I do not feel concern - I do not feel embarrassed - I already know that I will be judged - I do not care . . . Should I feel and think different?

What benefit do I gain from being proven wrong? I would say only a relative benefit - that there is more to life than being right.


Am I wrong?

Bayesian Probability

Should a subjective degree of belief rationally change to account for availability of related evidence? Yes!

Why? Because if I understand nothing that I see, read or hear then everything that I read, see or hear has the same initial probability of being correct.

Only that which is correct is worth believing on.

A degree of belief . . .

. . . I do not expect you to take my word for it - do not expect me to take your word for it . . .

. . . If what you say sounds right - I will proceed with caution and lend what you say a small degree of belief . . .

. . . As more evidence supports what you say - then my degree of belief shall increase.

It is not personal - it is called being careful . . .


Most philosophers I talk to are objectivists; the second most common philosophers contend objectivism and subjectivism are interdependent and in an equilibrium of some sort, whereby one can choose to focus more on one aspect than the other, and that both camps must acknowledge the presence and function of the opposite. Very few take the fully subjectivist position.

I’ve contemplated this for years and examined all arguments. I believe subjectivism is the canvas upon which the concept of objectivism is drawn. We are living in an isolated dream, no exit, and any philosophy arguing otherwise is stupid, scared, self-preservational, or all three. And yet, there may be nothing stupid about being self-preservational. Especially since life is subjective. That is the limit of philosophy. When you butt up against the ultimate truth, and it tells you that you must lie in order to live.


Your thoughts have much depth . . . if I may share a couple of my own just for the sake of prosperous thought.

To know yourself, you’ll find that almost all of the knowing was invention, you have a silent mind, a ghost town of the present wherein no world exists at all. Something inside tells us to seek independence. Logic dictates you ought to reason with complete independence, not relying on communication you’ve ever heard or read. Meditating and contemplating, becoming familiar with the silent mind.

To understand ultimate truth one need only sit in reality undisturbed by delusion, and there the nature of reality is present. Concept-clinging works mostly as a hindrance to insight. Take it away for even a few moments, a silent mind, and you’ll immediately realize that there’s existence. Seriously, take a look around you, check the room, where is non-existence besides as shallow concept? What you know, the only thing anyone knows, is existence.

I will think about what you have said and I will respond. I like what you have said so I want to respond . . . for now I hope my thoughts are met with some depth.


Only when you can personally verify that there is no alternative. And you can only do that through careful use of Logic. Those without logic skills have no option but to have faith in what others say, and thus never truly know, but merely believe.

I can truly know things, as many others can. But most others never truly know anything. The much greater mass merely believes or wonders aimlessly and are thus trapped into falling into passion based belief - lust or fear.

Logic is the path out of the dark clouds.


I like what you have written here - so I pulled up the three angels of truth to add to it.

The three angels obviously have a connection to this.

A) Consistency/Coherence
B) Comprehensiveness
C) Relevancy
They do appear however to be forerunners to logic - in other words the terminology leaves a little room for expansion - in other words each of these words can be based on degrees or levels. Logic however seems to be more solid. So are the three angels of truth for subjective use to give us a hint that what we are looking for in the objective appears to be real? I am interested - I discovered these three angels a few months ago now.