"The debate was then concluded, long ago, because this was science and not a debate club."
Hahahaha. Fair enough point. I'll change that, I sort of wrote the introduction first, when I had done minimal research, and so when I saw that people still believed in subjective reality, I assumed that it was still a legit viewpoint, even though I disagreed with it. I'm glad that I got the recently revived by quantum mechanics part right though. The audience is my teacher, who's fairly intelligent, and while I'm not entirely sure he's familiar with the concept, I'm thinking about going into further detail with the quantum mechanics and briefly (if that's possible) covering how exactly the debate was revived by quantum mechanics. Thank you, Sir.
There are definitely approaches to QM that smack of subjective reality ("subjective" describing this one you of the many near-clones of you, one in each possible worlds each quantum mechanical outcome involving you creates, if you believe the MWI the way EY does). However, it is indeed best to stay away from the topic unless you are well versed in it.
I want to start out by saying that I'm an ultra-beginner when it comes to stuff like this, but I had to do a definition essay in English, and I chose to contrast objective and subjective reality. So, if any of this seems wrong to you, please let me know. I'm sort of stuck right now, because I'm not really sure what to write about next. I'm thinking maybe the history of how the terms came to be or something. Also, for citations, I'm struggling with MLA formatting, so I might not have something in quotations cited, let me know if you want the cites for something.
Regardless of whether or not one watches a phenomenon occur, it still, in fact, occurs. Or does it? This argument is known as objective versus subjective reality. While objective reality initially seems to be the more obvious and substantial answer, fairly recent discoveries in the world of quantum physics have caused new questions to spring up regarding this ancient belief. Whether or not reality occurs outside of the human mind or exists only inside of the consciousness is a question that, despite countless arguments, remains unresolved. Despite arguments that insist on promoting the idea that reality is entirely dependent on our fallible perceptions (subjective reality), the evidence remains in favor that there is indeed a real world that exists independent of our observations (objective reality).
Subjective reality is defined as “relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.” Proponents of this theory generally believe that reality is relative, and so if someone cannot see an object in front of them, it ceases to exist. Objective reality, in contrast, means “existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.” Objective reality usually implies that everything can be proven using rationality, science, and mathematics. Although people use their mind to interpret and to put into practice this information, it still exists outside of the mind to be observed.
If there existed a picture, in a room, two people could agree that the picture is objective, and occurs outside of their mind. However, one could find the picture to be quite lovely, and another could detest it with a passion. These two ideas are not necessarily wrong, but are subjective. Based on this thought, some would suggest that reality is merely whatever a person believes reality to be. However, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away” (Dick). Someone can choose to deny the existence of gravity, but when they step off of a building, the end result is fairly obvious. Simply thinking something to be true does not make it so, because “the map is not the territory” (Korzybski, par.1).
It is mainly the difference between the map and the territory, that marks the difference between objective and subjective reality. The map, or how we perceive the territory, does not necessarily reflect the territory (reality) itself. One can have directions on a map that appear to lead to somewhere quite interesting, but when acted out within the territory, can be misleading. Changing a belief about something changes nothing but chemical firing patterns within the brain. The goal should be to attempt to draw maps as close as possible to the actual territory, but to do so, human fallibility must be admitted, and an attitude of humility should be taken up.
Note: This is all I have so far, I'm supposed to be about halfway done. Anything that is incorrect/needs fixing? :D Thanks guys!