[squishington]

I think language does us a disservice here. I'm reminded of Korzybski's work in Science and Sanity. The interpretation of "truth" depends on which level of abstraction you are operating on. "Every statement is true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense". The term "reality" implies a perceiver, and that perceiver is generating "reality" based on their neurological instrument, which has its own biases based on its prior experience and genetics.

[d4rkn0d3z]

I agree that language other than math fails us here. Nevertheless, I humbly try to convey thoughts that occur in me with these tools.

[an0malous]

But the problems described by the parent comment also exist in mathematical language, that’s what Godel Incompleteness is. The problem is inherent to all conceptual frameworks

[yubblegum]

> The term "reality" implies a perceiver

No. Subjective reality is what we experience as sentients. There must be an object reality and imho that is the only statement of truth that can be uttered in language, with "language" to be understood in the sense that Werner Hisenberg uses that term.

So I'm with Bohr, Hisenberg on this matter. We can not 'presume' to speak of the Real with capital R. It exists but it can not be 'encompassed'.

No vision can encompass Him, but He encompasses all vision. Indeed, He Is the Most Subtle, the All-Aware! - Qur'an - 6.103

[rramadass]

Leave out the quran quote since that is most definitely not what Bohr/Heisenberg/Others mean when they talk about subjectivity/observation/measurement. See my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45759220

If you want to discuss Philosophical/Ontological/Epistemological concepts of Reality/Truth etc. there are far better models in Hindu/Buddhist scriptures. The submitted article itself refers to Nagarjuna's Sunyata and Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy.