[brightlancer]

> Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of bias,

Yes.

> which is really stretching the term.

No.

There is an objective reality which we can only perceive subjective. We then get together as groups and agree upon what we're going to call "true", building upon what we've previously agreed was "true". This is bias.

But not all agreed "true" are equally accurate! Not all biases are as subjective as others.

So we can (and IMO should) recognize that we're all biased and we're all subjectively interpreting the objective reality, without embracing some kind of fatalism or post-modern idea that all subjective interpretations are equally valid.

[cf141q5325]

While we can only perceive subjectively, reality is more then just an agreement. Once biased perspective collides with reality, reality wins. There being no hope of getting an objective reality model doesnt change that. Looking at your last paragraph, i dont think you disagree.

[pixl97]

Life itself is a biased perspective that, at least temporarily, changes the objective environment around it.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is the number of future potential states is maximized by living and more so by thinking creatures then the future potential state dictated by purely physical interactions such as gravity or chemical bonding. Life can selectively spend energy in one place to reduce the entropy in another place.

Lets look at this in a past/present view. In the past if you got a bad cut, you could die, and maybe if you prayed just the right way or put the right plant you'd avoid the infection and you might not die. Now, we know if you use clean water on wounds and use antibiotics that you and drastically reduce, but not eliminate the risk of infection.

Our view of the problem and solution space massively increased thereby changing how we measured what we thought was true.

[atlantic]

If reality can only be perceived through a subjective lens, then that is the only reality there is. Reality as something independent of any observer is just a fantasy. And if you think about it, it's actually meaningless.

[guy98238710]

> There is an objective reality which we can only perceive subjective.

Observation is not inherently subjective though. The defining quality of objective reality is that it leads to shared, repeatable observations.

[pixl97]

Repeatable observations typically simplify assumptions to achieve stability in face of combinatorial explosions. We gain statistical insight on the probability something is true in particular conditions, not that something is an absolute truth.

For example, if you take someone in the medical sciences when it comes to pharmaceutical treatment if they don't tell you there are wide ranging statistical truths that are difficult to apply to individuals, then they are a bad scientist.

Systems complexity leads to subjectivity due to feedback loops inside the system itself. Think of deeply nested IF statements customized for a particular application, but no one bothers to give you the source code.