>The question is ontological. What is real?
>
>Clearly Rand and I agree that there are two "realms": an objective reality and a conscious reality.
>
>Ayn seems to think that "what is real" is the objective reality, but I find this counter intuitive. I'm looking at my keyboard right now. My concsious experience of the keyboard is what feels real to me, but according to objectivism what feels real to me is really a conscious manifestation of something more fundamental, and that something more fundamental is what is "real."
>
>It seems more intuitive to say that whatever feels real is real, and the fundamental entities that aren't directly observed may as well be considered non-existent.

Then, how real is the dark side of the moon to you? You haven't ever seen it. Some people did, but you haven' seen them either - are they real?

How real is mathematics? It could be construed as our collective imaginative work, that we for some reason treat as proof, but is it real? Could be the real mathematics (or physics, for that matter) of the current universe is something completely different from our toy.

Since any proof of this (either way - proving or disproving) can be only constructed using what we _think_ is logical and sound, we can only conclude that there's no logical flaw in solipsism. Any further conclusion is the personal choice of one who concludes.

>This terminology isn't an issue of any importance until we start to talk about physics. The principles of relativity and uncertainty describe what is observed in our conscious experience. Some would suggest that they describe reality, but obviouslly an objectivist wouldn't necessarily agree.

Or s/he may - by pointing out that these things were real since time immemorial, regardless of us being aware of them or not.

>I think that its important to recognize that this terminology issue isn't critical to objectivism on the surface, but it reminds us of something deeper: that what we consider facts (assuming a fact is a codified statement that describes nature) really rest on layers and layers of assumptions, definitions, myths, and conjectures.
>
>It is this realization that causes us to look a statement like "reality is an objective absolute, facts are facts" and say that this could be true if we agreed on the required assumptions and definitions. Thus in the process of making the statement true, we are really proving it false.

We aren't proving it either way. The meaning of it, as I take it, is that facts are facts, but we may interpret them, misread them, be unable to find them, evaluate them based on flawed theories, and generally get them wrong in all imaginable ways. The facts would remain the same - unless, of course, these are facts about ourselves, which can change - i.e. unperturbed by our meddling.

So I think the statement requires some stratification between "facts per se" and "facts as perceived by me". The problem of the observer who influences the observed event. And then, you know that any such stratification leads to n-fold stratification (fact per se, fact per observer, fact per observer of the observer...), et cetera, ad infinitum.

Therefore, I'm really tempted to find out how can this rigmarole be used to prove that capitalism is good - and prove that using just a couple of axioms and pure logic. Ummm... 45 proof logic, maybe?