Not if you include all subjective realities in objective reality. The
latter is
supposed to be all-encompassing. Everything that is, including my and your
subjective experience, is part of objective reality.
>If objective reality always gives off photons in the same way,
>and always has the same magnetic field, and always exhibits the
>same time dependent behaviour, no matter what the observer is, is
>there really any point in distinguishing between objective
>reality and the properties it has?
Yes, because properties are subjective. They are the parts of
objective reality that are of interest to humans. Do you agree
that there is a point in distinguishing objective reality from
subjective reality even though we can only experience the latter?
One way to look at science and math is they are part of the
subjective reality of the human race as a whole.
>What about something like the relative heights of Danny Devito
>and Kevin Costner? For something such as this where everyone who
>is qualified to judge (i.e., everyone who has seen both of them
>side by side) would give the same judgement, is it still a
>subjective matter?
It is if any of "Danny Devito", "Kevin Costner", "height" and "qualified"
are subjective matters. Are these names, words and labels absolute?
Pop quiz: "Danny Devito is shorter than Kevin Costner, true of false?"
David McFadzean: true
KMO: true
Jason McVean: True with a capital T
David Leeper: relatively true
Tad from TeTa: TTrue!
Richard Brodie: who cares?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/