>There was a time in my life that I would have agreed with this statement.
> Now I would say that it is an assumption that an objective reality exists.
> I do not believe that there is a separation between THE objective reality
> and A physical therapy.
>
> Any thoughts?

Russell,

I agree with the quote-of-the-week statement:
>>"Any serious consideration of a physical theory must take into account the
>> distinction between the objective reality, which is independent of any
>> theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates. These
>> concepts are intended to correspond with the objective reality, and by means
>> of these concepts we picture this reality to ourselves."

I think it is meant to imply that theories will always be faulty of slightly incomplete in modeling Reality, in that they are theories. Einstein and friends are trying to draw attention to the fact that theories are models and their language and other descriptive faculties are only tools used to communicate our understanding of the universe. They mention it only so we don't forget it.

Whether or not there is an objective reality -- well, I think the authors obviously think so, and I think they mean to say that, even if there isn't -- whatever is out there that we try to describe, we still need to realize there is a difference between our descriptions and the thing(s) we describe.

My personal view is that there is a reality and that we interact with it just in the way suggested by EPR; we use models and theories to help us understand what it is like, since, apparently, we are not just plugged in directly to its motions. At least not as far as our intellect is concerned. I believe we are plugged in physically.

Why do you not believe in "objective reality"?

Maya Lessov
Vancouver