How is this definition of "belief"?

I hear you but I disagree...it seams to me people are satisfied with some sort of both things are fundamental but they are wrong, and I am not saying this just to piss everybody else...the issue is far more important then it may seam...this is about foundation or lack of it...
If you want to prevent an infinite regression of observers needing being observed by more observers on which case you would need infinitely many steps to not even advance 1 single micron ahead as all mechanic goes to hell (Zeno's paradox) you must assert a final prime object of all objects which is not being observed created constructed or whatever the hell any other similar word you want to call it in those lines...observation being by definition a relational coinage implies an infinite regression thus it CANNOT be fundamental...

...therefore concerning reality in its entirety one must rest at a final object something that really it is without anything else to create it which itself would need exist, a contradiction...a final thing must be without anyone creating it observing it...such thing is what we define as being an object. it is what it is.

Objective is used in statement's to convey state of affairs, and yes in that sense as all objects depend on a chain of cause, all could be the result of relational processes including being the possible product /creation of minds for those who are found of the idea, and in that sense subjective, but eventually, as that same chain is pushed back and back you will need an unmoved mover...I call it reality a final set which is mindless because mind requires action and such final object would be out of time. Time would emerge inside it and not alongside with it as it immediately forms a bigger set...such thing as it cannot neither infinitely regress to exist nor can create itself because it must be itself first is not created by anything which in turn means is INDEPENDENT...which is exactly what objective means. Thus REALITY MUST HAVE a FOUNDATION, it EXISTS, IT IS WHAT IT IS !

PS - The choice of sides here either implies Zeno's paradox with infinite regressions on one side and the fall of logic, mathematics, mechanics, and any other quantifiable mean of explanation, or alternatively, ending up admitting the need for foundation. There is no alternative third path to get along.

You wrote,

Doesn't make any sense; "unmoved mover" is a contradiction. If not, provide evidence for it.

...oh dear... go do some reading... the term is as old as philosophy...go read Zeno's paradox slowly very slowly k ?

Just because somebody writes about it doesn't mean it's a fact or true. Haven't you learned that lesson yet? LOL

That you "believe" it's opinions proves you are a subjective person/individual. Not everybody perceives it the same way you do; therefore subjective perception.

You know, garbage in - garbage out.

Stick with the basics; that's where one can learn good lessons.

I just demonstrated above why is true n you still miss it read again 2 posts above (big one)...damn this problem is known in several sciences...Jeeeesus Ci get informed before annoying or simply admit you are not getting the point...Chriiist !!!

Of course I agree with that. My point was more to say that it's confusing to say "reality is objective" or "reality is subjective". The correct use of those terms is to describe our understanding or perception of objects, but not objects themselves. A shoe cannot be objective nor subjective. It can be "objectively too small for my foot", or "subjectively ugly".

Hope this helps.

Good example; you wrote,

Thanks Ci. I always liked using shoes as examples...

It is indeed a redundancy to say a shoe is objective...when we say "a shoe" we already admit its an object...equally if we hallucinate about seeing a shoe we admit the object of being at hallucinating...the point of talking about objectivity at large is to explain people there MUST BE A FOUNDATION and gracefully we both agree on that !

PS - The point of subjectivity is to agree that although there is an objective prime order foundation we cannot assert where it rests as we ourselves are relational beings dependent on it...that's the all point about distinguishing perceptions from facts...but now these guys want to take it a step further and kill foundation...I don't intend to live in a mad house carnival where any nonsense someone gets out of the mouth is equally levelled because logic was thrown out of the window...

A "shoe" is a good example, because almost everybody on this planet who are humans with normal mental capacity understand the description without regard to "subjective" thinking.

The usage of "shoe" is a mental construct classifying a collection of atoms with a specific pattern...for a neolithic barefoot tribe there is no "shoe" in sight...you don't have a clue at all Ci...Even I can defend the side you are sticking with in a better way...

...there is no freaking point about any "shoe"...
...this is about the need for an objective source, an objective perceiver, and an objective phenomena, which is relationally dependent, that is what subjective refers in !

It would be redundant to say that an object is an object, but it's actually improper and confusing to say that an object is objective. "Objective" and " subjective" are categories reserved for descriptions. You can say: "Reality exists objectively" (and yes, I agree with that statement). You cannot really say: "Reality is objective". It doesn't mean anything, just like "my shoe is objective" means nothing.

you see you came a bit late to this thread...I said that around 20 pages ago...when one says reality is what it is, which amounts to say reality is objective, we are adding nothing to reality...it is a redundancy...we are not making any description other then the very word reality is not already implying...but the point of the all debate was to contradict that...there were claims we were asserting something...please note that is and exists are interchangeable...there is nothing wrong in asserting that except that normally tautologies should not need explaining.
If it is the case that you want to kill foundation then it is of UTTER importance to explain the tautology !

As I see it at the core this is a political dispute between order and anarchy between "government" and "freedom fighters" or hippies...

Most don't even know their attraction for absolute subjectivity in the sense of trying to kill foundation comes from their genotype being hippie like !
...I better shut up n avoid going on psychoanalytic Freudian mode...

Fil, You have great imagination; most people do not look at a shoe and observe that it's made up of atoms. A shoe is a shoe is a shoe.

I've already explained my position on objective and subjective. That you have different definitions for these common words is not my problem.

Atoms or no atoms.

Not sure I'm getting my (admittedly minute and syntactic) point across but anyway... I agree that the idea the universe needs little insignificant human beings to exist is preposterous. Not to mention that it grossly overestimates the difference between humans and animals.

Like when did the universe decide that enough "sentient observation" was around to start existing, exactly? When Lucy came on stage? Or did it wait for Homo erectus?

A shoe is a shoe is a shoe intends as an OBJECTIVE statement whether is successful or not that's what it intends...do you understand that ?

If you still have to ask me that question, you haven't understood any of my posts.

You see how problematic it is...it is not even possible to make a sentence with logic about it as it already needs exist to start existing...its not just preposterous it is logically impossible !

No Ci I am avoiding conflicting with you as you seam a nice fellow..I gather you don't have a clue what is being debated here...better leave it aside Ci, just a word of advise...