[wmt]

The funny thing is that we can measure reality with all kinds of instruments, and based on those measurements have been able to make theories (in the scientific meaning of the word) that have taken us to other planets of our solar system.

So yeah, I'd say our perception of reality is pretty okay.

[ccallebs]

The point he makes is that those instruments and theories have an inherent bias to the kind of reality we perceive. That reality is a result of our evolutionary fitness and is not objective. Even the words we use to describe concepts are a function of the limitations our vocal cords and frontal lobe.

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM3CptVZDYU

[kazinator]

So what? A bias doesn't mean that these observations and theories are wrong. There can be non-conflicting, different ways of looking at the same thing. Usually they will have something in common (at least that thing itself, plus some of its attributes that are included in both aspects).

A bias doesn't preclude objectivity, either; "biased" is not a synonym for "subjective", and therefore not the opposite of "objective".

[ccallebs]

I'd argue that any sort of bias is orthogonal to the idea of an absolute reality. However, it doesn't preclude any reality. Out of pragmatism we need to be able to define one. The survival of our species also hinges upon that.

But thought experiments have the luxury of not needing pragmatism.