Intersub/objective reality

Continuing this post, the results of the experiment also indicate to me that we can and do have different interpretations of empirical data. But that doesn't necessitate that every interpretation is of equal value. Even supposing that we cannot fully know an objective reality, which is different than saying there is no objective reality, we must nevertheless decide intersub/objectively what is good and what makes progress toward that good. This will indeed include necessary value judgments based on those decisions to act accordingly.

In that context it also behooves us to redefine subjective and objective reality. The presupposition of the experiment assumes that they are dichotomous domains that are pure in themselves, whereas my interpretation of the results is that those domains are interactive, which both enhances and constrains them. The question then becomes is this interpretation more in line with the above statements about how we intersub/objectively decide our definitions, and which are conducive to our notions of progress or evolution.

But isn't that a circular argument? Yes, according to a strictly dichotomous logic. But that's the point, that the interactive paradigm is a progression or evolution over the formal logical argument given the experimental results. At least according to how we are defining our terms, including reality. If this paradigm then feeds back into our interactive definitions of progress and reinforces it then that is criteria enough for justification. We could choose to frame it as a directional spiral going somewhere instead of spinning our wheels in a circle jerk.

As I made the case in the power law religion post, just assuming an axiom is correct (real) a priori and then logically inferring from there is also a circular argument. Instead we must choose axioms based on empirical evidence, But even axioms so based are also open to interpretation given the above.

Again, we come back to what is most useful and beneficial to society based on what we as a society decide what is so. It is that legitimization process that is hashed out over time and experiment which fits our definitions of progress and evolution. As to evolution, one of its main criteria is fitness for survival and propagation of the species. But now, faced with overpopulation, we'll need to redefine fitness differently, as the destruction of the planet is a real consequence of that limited definition.