I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the theory presented here because of the click-baity title of the thread, "There Is No Such Thing As Objective Reality."
See, first of all, the study cited in question does not show there is no objective reality. The key part of the study that shows the scientists in question have no idea what's going on is contained in this sentence:
Quote:Quote:
There is an alternative explanation for their findings however, which instead proposes there is an objective reality but it can't be experienced, and there is still a subjective reality which is: quantum nonlocality.
So, the whole idea that "there is no objective reality" is obviously just a bullshit thesis that cannot be proven (as the very wording contradicts itself) that will get attention and clicks. In reality, what they are discovering is the limitations of human observation - two different humans will perceive completely different things that are actually mathematically and physically sound, while observing the same phenomena. This is a riddle, how can such a thing be possible?
And the answer to that was posited by Kant almost 250 years ago (the only real progress of philosophy we've had since Aristotle), that what we experience is generated by our mind (the phenomena), a very weak and imprecise instrument, while what is actually real cannot be perceived and does not exist inside our mind (the noumena).
Kant was able to deduce the phenomena and noumena without any advanced electron particle measurements by looking at key paradoxes of human reason, he dubbed the antinomies, which showed we can logically prove two conflicting things about the nature of reality. He also used other parts of human perception to bolster his claims, such as the fact that we observe light bend in water, we see stars moving in patterns in the sky that seemed impossible (at least they did in 1780; Kant was a huge astronomer and gets credit for many space discoveries today), etc.
But the big findings of Kant was that we can prove there is a soul and that there is no soul, that there is God and there is no God, that the universe (i.e. outer space) is both finite and infinite, and that time is both finite and infinite.
Obviously, it cannot be the case that contradictions exist, so what is really happening is that our mind is unable to perceive the true nature of reality. Which is exactly what Jesus and the tradition of the Bible has claimed for thousands of years (we cannot begun to comprehend the universe as God does).
Notre Dame has a pretty good lecture explaining Kant's metaphysics and epistemology through the Antimony of Reason here:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/200...nomies.pdf
Once you read the above, then when you come back to this new scientific "discovery" (it's not a discovery, Kant discovered it back in 1780 lol, it's just new for most people because Kant's theories are so difficult fewer than .001% of the population can understand it) people are finally beginning to understand how the human mind generates contradictions with hard empirical research.
Second of all, the whole 'simulation' theory which gets a lot of traction from Cernovich and Scott Adams is just a pop-philosophy watered down version of Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. In other words, it's weak bullshit compared to the real deal of Kant, and I'm fairly sure Cernovich knows this since he is a well read philosopher (for example, Cernovich is huge into Nietzsche, and Nietzsche talks about Kant extensively, as do all intelligent men). But, the simulation theory is a pretty good purple-pill into the red pill of Kant, and maybe within another 250 years, people will begin to actually understand what Kant taught and use it to generate practical results in science and technology the layman can understand.
Just like it took nearly 2000 years before someone surpassed Aristotle's
Metaphysics and Plato's
The Republic, both of which although thousands of years old are hardly understood by more than 1% of the population, it will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of years before Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason is surpassed by another philosopher.
People like Einstein or Neil Bohr, who are widely regarded as geniuses of the modern age that lead to the discovery of nuclear physics, both read Kant when young and for all of their study, were only answering around 1 or 2 parts of Kant's theories and problems of epistemology.
For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just an answer to a
single Antinomy of Kant's, the one of space being both infinite and finite. Einstein's brilliant response to Kant? That space is infinitely bounded (it's both finite and infinite, an expanding mass that one can never step outside of and yet a mass that expands indefinitely). And it's evident that even Einstein's theory does not fully answer Kant's Antinomy.
And just by answering a few pages of Kant, humanity discovered this:
Imagine if humanity took the time to figure out the rest of the paradoxes discovered by Kant, who knows what is possible? Time travel, direct communion with dead souls or even God is not outside the realm of possibility once we escape the prison of our mind (
The Matrix is more or less a complete rip-off of Kantian metaphysics).
If anyone here wants the greatest intellectual challenge of their lives, try reading the
Critique of Pure Reason; to make it easier I highly recommend this resource:
http://userpages.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/index.html
That said, Roosh and many others in this thread are correct that science and philosophy are often abused to justify the worst degeneracies. Ironically, Kant himself was a hardcore moral absolutist who would denounce our age as a doomed decadent waste. His philosophy was a rigorous justification of Christian principles.
Really, the smartest people to have ever lived was Jesus (who is so far in the lead it seems impossible to ever catch up), Aristotle, Kant, and Plato in that order (as far as I have read). When one gets to these levels, mistakes are as common as rain, and everyone makes them (myself included!).
Every single scientific theory today can be traced back to Kant. To describe the influence of Kant is nothing more than to write a history of science since 1780. Kant was a watershed moment in the intellectual progress of humanity, and since that peak of humanity we've fallen tremendously. It's going to be a long time before we get back there.
But the article Valentine posted shows we are finally discovering empirical evidence to support what Kant was able to deduce with mere reasoning alone, thus demonstrating the incredible power of his theories. Empirical research is an important step towards making further progress in philosophy, since before we can formulate new problems and theories we must have a clearer picture of reality to discard false hypotheses.