It's not something I've really thought deeply about, up until this week.
I found this study/article: A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
...and thought, "well, isn't it a bit convenient, there not being an objective reality?"
Over the past few years, having been a bit naive about it before, I've come to be more and more skeptical of mainstream science, and understand more and more the vast scope of top-down control, the biases, the "loyalties" and the "creative interpretations" of the scientific method; which drive everything along - also, indeed, the active suppression of contradictory, yet valid, theories, explanations, and critiques of discoveries that are basically forced upon the public consciousness before they are truly proven.
It almost seems as if there is a war on the concept of objective reality, and not just in science.
Seeing this laid out so blatantly within a study in the most complex, vague and difficult to understand area of physics, makes me wonder about the people who are involved, and if they aren't already disbelievers in objective reality, using jargon and complexity to force their ideology to the fore.
Anyway, I'm actively researching this side of quantum theory now. One of the first interesting things I found is a book I thought I'd share:
The Farce of Physics (full text)
Written by Bryan G. Wallace and put directly on the internet in 1993!
Back then the internet had just begun, and there was only one web browser, text only, called lynx: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser) . I was surprised to learn it is still actively maintained!
So Wallace would die just three years after publishing his book online, not very old, not very young... He never made any profit on it, nor attempted to. Have a read of his MSM obit at the above link and you'll see where he was coming from. To my mind, he seems the very definition of an educated and intelligent, independent observer, even if that article has a subtle, mocking tone of his scorn for Einstein. The book appears to be the result of an extended period of many years of independent research.
An early computer/internet adopter and long term conspiracy researcher, Raeto West, saw it back then and preserved the entire text of the book in html on his website at the link above.
The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
https://bryangwallace.dreamhosters.com/ (website dedicated to Wallace which preserves his online forum discussions about his book)
The call it mainstream; currency; party-line; chain of command; progress etc. because it mimics motion aka it uses form to mimic flow, so that the few within form can suggest the mimicked flow to the many others within form, in exchange for their consent to ignore the real flow; the motion that defines the moment(um) we exist in.
If you consent to believe in mainstream; currency; the party-line; the chain of command; progress etc. then they gain the power to act in the name of it to define the real flow which sustains our form (energy in motion).
Yes, ONE needs to adapt to inspiration of ALL perceived to build ONEs own comprehension aka ONEs potential (form) within ALL potentiality (flow). Believing others corrupts and restricts that growth needed for self sustenance of form within flow.
The object reality represents flow; the subject reality represents form, and since both coexist as motion and momentum within energy; the terms reality and fiction do not apply. All terms we use to brand form with; do not apply within flow, and the few use the ignorance of the many towards this to suggest languages as spell-casting to get the many to consent to believe words from the few that define reality for them.
There biggest lie is that truth exists. Only if we believe in truth (an affixed state in ignorance of flow) can others contradict our beliefs with a so called lie (an affixed state in ignorance of flow). Both truth and lie and the resulting conflict of reason (truth vs lie) are being used to maintain the ignorance towards motion, and since ignorance is caused by free will of choice, they need to use suggestion to trick us to consent to their offers.