I've already said, I don't understand the science, just the concept, but aren't you shifting the goalposts? You stated something that was either a or b, and that was the objective reality. I suggested a situation based on my (extremely limited) understanding of quantuum physics, where it could be both a and b, then you said that was the objective reality.
Actually, Reality does not have to be either a or b. If the truth is that it is neither a nor b...or both a and b...then the objective reality is that.
That is why I said earlier in the thread that it can reasonably be argued that “there is no objective REALITY” is a definitional impossibility. If there truly is no objective REALITY…then that IS the objective reality. No amount of subjective considerations can change that.
No real need to understand physics to be realistic in this discussion, Izzy...and for the most part you have been.
It is a difficult area of thought...and Fresco, who apparently is very learned in this area, gets a kick out of presenting philosophical concepts in complicated prose in order to make it seem he has to be right, because he can use bigger words and more complicated phraseology.
That is not how it works, however.
You, Izzy, have to realize that there IS an objective REALITY about the presence of sentient beings or large carbon based life forms on the planets I mentioned. It simply is a YES or NO proposition.
Think about it.
If you want to discuss this particular issue you'd best talk to Fresco. I don't understand the science, perhaps he can explain.