Would you say that all claims about the world are subjective, because they have to be based on someone’s observations?
For example my cat weighs 13 pounds. That seems objective, in the sense that if two people disagree, only one can be right. But the claim is based on my observations. I think your logic leads us to deny that anything is objective.
I do believe in objective reality, but probabilities are subjective. Your cat weighs 13 pounds, and now that you've told me, I know it too. If you asked me to draw a probability distribution for the weight of your cat, I'd draw a tight gaussian distribution around that, representing the accuracy of your scale. My cat weighs a different amount, but I won't tell you how much, so if we both draw a probability distribution, they'll be different. And the key thing is that neither of us has an objectively correct probability distribution, not even me. My cat's weight has an objectively correct value which even I don't know, because my scale isn't good enough.
All right now, here's the big question:
how do you know that the evidence your
sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct?
What I'm getting at is this: the only
experience that is directly available to
you is your sensory data. And this sensory
data is merely a stream of electrical
impulses which stimulate your computing
center.
In other words, all that I really know
about the outside universe is relayed to
me through my electrical connections.
Why, that would mean that...I really don't
know what the outside universe is like at
all, for certain.
For example my cat weighs 13 pounds. That seems objective, in the sense that if two people disagree, only one can be right. But the claim is based on my observations. I think your logic leads us to deny that anything is objective.