>"true reality"
does such a thing exist? we know that we translate a field of information given to our sense organs into intelligible forms of feeling. we see light within a particular EM spectrum, while invisible phenomena may be visible via artificial instruments like infrared cameras. within the broad field of information therefore, we can only interpret some of it, but would it be possible to interpret all of it at once? what would this mean?
other instruments such as large telescopes do not interpret light waves, but rather, radio waves - the stars which we "see" in their final product have been recoded from ancient and distant etchings. so if we had ears like radio telescopes, then we could "hear" outer space by seeing it in a colourless antiquity - but does this make it a more "true" experience?
well, as it should be known, a radio telescope can receive stars as shapes, but it cannot receive telecommunications on earth as sound, because it isnt tuned for this. like frequencies for a radio device, phenomena is only perceptible within a particular band. so information is infinite, but its interpretation is inherently limited. what we experience currently then is still "true reality", but just within a particular frequency band. i think if "true reality" has a face, it is most likely just formless static, like an untuned television. there is nothing to feel with "real" senses.
I think Kant was right to distinguish between phenomena and noumena. As you said:
>we see light within a particular EM spectrum, while invisible phenomena may be visible via artificial instruments like infrared cameras
It's true, microwaves are also "light" we cannot see but it cooks our food.
And it's the same for sound, we only hear frequencies between 20 Hz and 20kHz, IIRC cats can hear up to 50k or 60k Hz. Most consumer sound equipment is not designed to reproduce frequencies beyond 22kHz.
After an existential crisis triggered by playing Valkyrie Profile on a Playstation 1 emulator, I came to the conclusion our relationship to "true reality" is analog to the incapacity of a chihuahua to truly understand all the subtilities of a human language.
We will never understand "true reality", "God", and all that sort of stuff, to the fullest extent.
Our brains are limited to sense how the true world functions for survival purposes, and we are smart bastards so we invented language to communicate and so on. Drawing, music, etc.
But we do not understand why are we here? or anything close to such an understanding of what is the essence of life?. We invent concepts like God to cope, promoting Platonic all-encompassing virtues (for survival purposes), but we fucking don't know why the fuck are we fucking here in the first place and in the end, and we will never know.
It's okay, I think, to make peace with the fact that we will never ever know what is true reality. Let's go back to human affairs.
>>694176>>694286< Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality. However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.
< Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.
< According to standard quantum mechanics, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or instead leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process. The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."