Zen and the art of probabilities

When a person makes a statement or asks a question,
they assume that there is an objective audience that can
appreciate what has been stated.

To say anything, one assumes that there will be a certain
degree of objectivity in the response.

If there was no objectivity, then there would be no cause
to believe that there would be a reasonable response.

The alternative is a state of solipsis, which is probably similar
to the extreme withdrawal of a mind in an autistic state.
But even the autistic have methods of conveying hunger.
They have learnt that a reasonable response to their needs
can be met. They have still assumed a minimal amount of objectivity
in order to make that communication.

Without objectivity, there logically cannot be communication.
Though ABSOLUTE objectivity would mean no need for communication,
or else all would be understood intrinsically.

Mayflow wrote:I see no proof that every observor does not experience a unique set of laws of physics.

This is a necessarily undisputable fact, that there can be no such "proof" at least.  There can be "evidence" that seems to suggest that the laws of physics are universal from the perspective of the subjective experience, and self-consistent theories that model the behavior, which include internally consistent proofs.  There still is no way to subjectively see beyond this single necessary assumption to an absolutely provable universal theory of physics.  At least not from a purely subjective point-of-view, a position from which any individual observer must always speak by definition (be it directly or indirectly - the latter case describes the use of "objective" inanimate detectors as observers, but their data is meaningless until a conscious subjective observer actively reads and interprets their data.)

This can be said to further lead to the inclusion of the unavoidable extreme case in which the laws of physics for all other subjects (observers) are so far separated from the reader (self) that they effectively push the limitations of infinity and become nonsensical, i.e. they cannot truly exist as they break down completely.  This is inherently included in the set of answers that result from the original quotation above.  In this case, there is no conscious observer aside from self.  Which is, of course, how one naturally perceives the universe anyway, so there is an indoctrinated bias we've established since our earliest development towards this perspective, but usually a more profound desire to believe that this cannot be so, or else "all would seem to be for nil," and one is effectively alone in the universe - although nothing has changed just by the realization of something like this, it's not something for which we would like to as much as entertain the notion!  

If someone is at all religious, this also brings up the question of, "Am I (the reader) God?"  To be "God", whatever that happens to mean for any given person (if anything at all), is an scientifically unfalsifiable statement/concept.  I still find it an interesting question despite the fact that it is not in agreement with my beliefs.  To many, this may be wall of insurmountable magnitude, but I don't see any harm in believing something just to ponder it, unless someone fears they won't be able to "unbelieve" it, and how ridiculous is that?!  If you're that impressionable and on-the-fence, maybe you should consider changing your beliefs anyway.

I see no proof that every observor does not experience a unique set of laws of physics.
If there is even one probability factor, then there can be many probability factors exponentially.
It is very difficult for me to believe that there are not many hidden variables we may yet discover.
If probabilities are present for the observed, are they not also there for the observor?