We don't know anything objectively. We may believe that we do but this is a delusion. Everything we know is subjective. There are two kinds of subjective truths:

1. Exclusive subjective truths e.g. your thoughts, your dreams, your hallucinations, your pain, your pleasure, etc. Only you have access to them.

2. Shared subjective truths e.g. things two or more sentient beings can experience e.g. standing on the planet Earth, looking at the stars, eating at a restaurant, flying in a plane, etc.

I'm not sure what your definition of "objective," is here, but it seems like the objective should be a subset of number two. The objective is the view of things with biases removed, accounted for, or flattened out.

Objectivity cannot exist without subjectivity. For a world without any experiencing beings, talk about the "objective existence of things," becomes meaningless. Without the possibility of subjectivity, "objectivity" is a contentless term, seemingly applying equally to everything and nothing. "Objective," just becomes equivalent with "is," the term doesn't delineate any possible distinction.

There is, of course, a tendency to make "objective" a synonym for "without reference to mind," "noumenal," or even "in-itself, relating to nothing else." I don't think this is a helpful redefinition. If anything, it seems like a conflation, and it becomes particularly pernicious if combined with the idea that "objectivity approaches truth at the limit," or "the true view of things is the view from nowhere/anywhere."

Of course, it's true that a knowledge relationship cannot exist "without reference to a knower." But then it hardly seems like "without reference to a knower," should be the gold standard of knowledge. This is the incoherence at the center of positivism, whose ghost lingers on as a sort of voodoo strawman held aloft by post-modern thought as the foil that can be defeated to show all notions of objectivity and truth are relative or empty. But that the idea that "the truth of things is how they are conceived of without a mind," is simply broken doesn't really say much about truth and objectivity as a whole.

We can't know anything outside our subjective perceptions and understanding.

We can't know anything outside our subjective perceptions and understanding. — Truth Seeker

Including your merely "subjective" claim that "we can't ..." :roll:

Yes, all of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective. How can I possibly know anything objectively?

How do you know that "all of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective"? If your claim is merely subjective, then it's only a belief; however, if it is more-than-subjective, then you (we) know it is not true.

I think that my claim is merely subjective. Just because it is subjective, does that necessarily mean that it's a belief? I see these words on the website. For me, the act of seeing the words is subjective. How would I know anything objectively? Here is a Venn diagram I created to explain what I mean https://ibb.co/MB9qBhL

I think that my claim is merely subjective. — Truth Seeker

And therefore it's imaginary at best (i.e. not a true "claim") or self-refuting at worst.

You are assuming that what is subjective is imaginary or self-refuting. How would I know anything objectively?

How would I know anything objectively? — Truth Seeker

:roll: (e.g.) Start counting ...

I counted that there are two bananas in my fruit bowl. Is that an objective knowledge or a subjective sensory perception?

I counted that there are two bananas in my fruit bowl. — Truth Seeker

This is only datum, not "knowledge" (i.e. a historical and/or scientific explanation), that is more-than-subjective insofar as (a) you can actually eat the bananas and (b) you cannot actually eat the fruit bowl and, even more so, (c) you can actually measure (e.g.) the resting masses of the bananas and fruit bowl, separately and together. What grounds, Seeker, do you have to doubt that "two bananas in a fruit ball" refers to more than just your "subjective sensory perception"?

What grounds, Seeker, do you have to doubt that "two bananas in a fruit ball" refers to more than just your "subjective sensory perception"? — 180 Proof

in 1999, I watched a movie called "The Matrix". Please see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093 Have you seen it? If you have not, I highly recommend that you do. Ever since then, I have been wondering if the things I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell are really there or if they are a simulation. I can see the two bananas in my fruit bowl. I can touch them. I can peel them and eat them and experience their sweet taste. All of these are subjective experiences. How do I know that I am not in the Matrix?

By "subjective" I mean internal to minds. By "objective" I mean external to minds. How can we really know what is and what is not external to my mind? Solipsism can't be proven or disproven. The simulation hypothesis can't be proven or disproven.

"The red pill" really shows that there is no red pill ... just as "there is no spoon", "the matrix" means there is no matrix. ~ Agent 180 Proof :cool:

How do I know that I am not in the Matrix? — Truth Seeker

Well, for starters, you don't have any reasonable grounds to doubt that you are "not in The Matrix" ...

How can we really know what is and what is not external to my mind?

Whatever makes "my mind" mine (e.g. embodiment) cannot be internal to "my mind".

Solipsism can't be proven or disproven.

Speculative suppositions are not matters of "proof" like (e.g.) mathematical theorems; rather they are matters of reasonableness. For instance, do you believe it is reasonable to doubt that there are 'other minds, the external world'? Apparently, Seeker, as this discussion demonstrates, you do not.

The simulation hypothesis can't be proven or disproven.

How do you know this? Are you an expert or non-superficially familiar with universal quantum computation¹ (D. Deutsch)? Cite a fundamental physical law that is inconsistent with – prohibits – "the simulation hypothesis"; if fundamental physical laws do not prohibit it, propose some reasonable grounds to doubt that this universe is 'a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, etc' (N. Bostrom ... R. Penrose², S. Lloyd, S. Wolfram³, G. Mandelbroit ...) Again, it's a hypothesis about – model of – (aspects of) the physical world that is either experimentally testable (i.e. scientific) or it is not (i.e. pseudo-scientific or metaphysical) and therefore, in either case, is not a matter of "proof".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Turing_machine [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology [2]

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/ [3]

I agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that I am in the Matrix. I also agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that solipsism is correct. I also agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that we live in a simulation. I am currently going through a depressive episode which affects my concentration and comprehension so I didn't understand everything you said and everything in the links you shared. I don't know if I will ever get better but if I do, I will re-read everything to see if I understand them.

Okay. Take care and be well.

:up:

Thank you for your kind wishes and understanding.