If we are to grant an objective reality to objects, does that not imply that there is an objective space and time? And isn't Newton refuted on this point by modern comological conceptions?

There is no such thing as an objective measure of time or space, so how can we assign realism to any objects which must occupy a certain time and space???

There has been a revolution in modern science stating the indeterminability of the physical. Fundamental uncertainty has been proven already.

That would not be my understanding or conception of it. The classical mechanical conception of time and space as an independent rigid reality in which objects are placed, I think is now understood as incorrect but rigid independent time and space is not the same as "objective time and space". Time and space are now seen as flexible and elastic and as concepts which are really a relationship between events and "objects". This changed conception of time and space and the relationship between them and "objects" does not eliminate "objective reality" merely alters our conception of it or our ability to "know it". (Modern physics I think vindicates Kant in many ways) at least in the realm of the subatomic.

Certainty has nothing to do with the matter.

Let's flesh some things out there. The world, on a subatomic level, may be indeterminate. In fact, quantum theory tells us it may be. Let us suppose it is. Let us suppose that, on a subatomic level, we really can't know where each molecule is contained on any object (space), or when it is contained there (time). We can, at best, hypothesize with good reason, where things are, and when they are there.

You believe since we may not be able to be certain about these things, that these things do not exist? I think you all here are confusing what we can know, what we can be certain of, or what we can perceive, with what is. No matter if we can perceive the world on this ultimate (which I suppose you mean 'fundamental level'), or be certain of the world, it has nothing to do with what real(ly) exists. The world is real, and exists, no matter who or what perceives it. And modern science does not tell us otherwise. It seems some of you think it does, but you are wrong.

They exist... to an Observer in a certain state and Time and depending upon the relation between them...but they are not objects out of social context or personnel context...they are Meta-objects, aldo, they are referred as if tthey were objects of course !

Right, to us, there would be no object.

It doesn't matter if the object exists or not if we are unable to experience it, and it may be the case that there are things that exist that we can't experience. Do you not concede to this possibility?

But what has that to do with the existence of that object? Of course, all objects have effects, (gravitational, etc.) but they need not be on anyone who could be aware of them.

The world is real, and exists, no matter who or what perceives it. And modern science does not tell us otherwise. It seems some of you think it does, but you are wrong.

I am not using 'the existence of the object' as the basis for every argument in this thread. The basic argument is about whether a distinction can be made between reality and appearance. All of those are are arguing for the case say that it can because in some sense, reality is a function of perception. Your counter argument seems to be 'common sense tells us the objects are not a function of perception'. And that is about it.

This is the exact belief that modern physics has cast doubt on. This is why Einstein was so perplexed by quantum mechanics. His statements, 'I refuse to accept that God plays dice' and his frequent objections to 'spooky action at a distance' arose directly from the interpretations of QM by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and others. The independent existence of reality and the basis of physical realism are exactly what has been called into question by physics..

we are highly influenced by science. It is extremely useful. But might it not be extremely useless in other respects?

Science is built upon the test of fallibility. But this also means that science is potentially fallible by its own terms, in the sense that it may become impossible to test. (prof susskind recognises this potential intellectual catastrophe as quite possible). This is a different type of fallibility to the 'fallibility through testing' that yields better theories. On the contrary, if it happens it will be the end of testable theory.

The many worlds hypothesis for example, and the anthropomorphic principle. These are hardly obscure philosophical problems. But science is looking to put these theories forward and it looks quite possibly without the ability to test them.

This doesn't necessarily make them wrong. But if new theories do not yield new uses through new explanations that yield testable results that are different to competing theories ..... then what? Different theories that all predict the same measurements that can be made, while also predicting different measurements that cannot be made.

If our senses aren't complete, and our measuring apparatus isn't complete then where does that leave us? It leaves us with yet another loss in various meanings of the word objective .... that is quite clearly unravelling at the seams.

If the word objective unravels, what possible use is the phrase 'objective reality'? What does it mean to the person who uses it, who also understands its historical arc? Does it not necessarily mean a kind of metaphysical faith under such circumstances?

This is the exact belief that modern physics has cast doubt on. This is why Einstein was so perplexed by quantum mechanics. His statements, 'I refuse to accept that God plays dice' and his frequent objections to 'spooky action at a distance' .

Of course you do and I think you are overstating it. In fact Newtonian physics still is the basis for almost all technology and engineering in the realm of ordinary experience. It is only in the presence of extremely high relative velocities, accelerations and gravitational fields that general relativity comes into play. Quantum mechanics only applies in the realm of the very small. In the scale of ordinary human experience and human existence Newtonian physics still rules the day.

Whether it matters to us is irrelevant. And, of course I concede that possibility. I was the one who asserted it. In fact there probably are such objects. Objects so far distant, that the light from them will probably never reach us is [SIC] time for us to experience them.

The question 'what is real' is still open after all this discussion. .