But what if objective reality, for what that actually means and entails to us, doesn't exist in truth? Yet I'd suggest it does in function.

I feel like because of our use of language and inherent ideas, it goes both ways. I could not agree more in the sense that I have profusely expressed that objective reality exists many many times. I still stand by those statements; but, I think I may be using the same words in two different ways.

Some kind of objective reality must exist. Clearly. Yet it is our description that functions. We don't feel we've found the answers, or have the facts, positive statements that express more than nothing, simply by knowing objective reality exists. This, by itself, is useless. True. Yet it means very little until we form a description of that reality. That description is what we then say is truth.

Yet none of our descriptions of it are provably true. More than that. What I'm suggesting is that we can never prove the descriptions. Our descriptions aren't true by this nature. What is logically true is only that there is something. Not what it is; yet, we can still know the function of our descriptions quite well.

When we think about the recursion, aren't any of our descriptions that we seek to call truth only sensible if we place them within the psychological constructs of our minds? Would our ideas mean something to anything else other than ourselves? Would something else conscious that has no use, no emotional attachment or curiosity towards, a specific construct, be able to understand what our truth means when that specific construct is pivotal to our truth? And yet a truth, objective reality, wants to say we should have agreement, in that it is the truth.

Perhaps we can say truth exists in different ways. Bare logic gives us one, which is what yields that objective reality exists. Maybe occams gives us another form of truth, one that is useful when the other form of truth isn't?

It isn't true that x description is an undeniable universally understood (beyond just humans) objectively accurate description. It is true that all we can know is that x description yields y result/functionality. It is true that yielding our description to that functionality provides the same kind of direction we seek from our concept of truth, the same sense as if it were objectively accurate in some universal way.

Thinking on this topic I've landed at this thought that truth, as we try to define it, doesn't exist. Epistemic uncertainty is always possible. The greatest minds in logic and epistemology tried to solve it and arrived effectively at a stalemate. In physics, we end up with uncertainty as a fact as well. In a nutshell, when you get down to a fine enough view, the act of observation becomes relatively large to the observation, enough so that the act of observing impacts the results, making a true observation simply impossible. These dilemmas, I reckon, don't have solutions. There isn't a new thought, method or technology that will fix it. It is impossible.

Yet occams then gives us a new definition of truth. Perhaps our old idea of it simply doesn't exist. It's not that we haven't found the truth; but, that the truth doesn't exist. The razor doesn't point at the truth. It points at function. Truth then is functionality. Which shows true in everything.

Take consciousness, the problem of the other, and all the metaphysical models. Like these topics, I feel we cannot find those answers. And I reckon occams is a decent compass there too. We can find "truth" in the absence of such a thing (as we like to think of it) by focusing on functionality.

Just some random thoughts. What you said was interesting and got me thinking this.

I always feel it isn't quite right to say that Newtonian physics is wrong.

Yes it's true that it is a case within the more general theory; but, in a way, you can always say this is likely true of even the new wider case theory. You will never be able to say you are sure there aren't exceptions, new cases, wider more general laws, than the ones we arrive at through scientific method. It is a baseline assumption of science that such is the case at all times.

And did Newtonian physics ever claim to be universally functional in all conditions and places? It was derived for use terrestrially. It continues to work for that. The evidences found still hold true. Only a fool would have claimed they knew it would work outside of the known realm of it's usage and verification. No theory is absolute. The universe has no objective truth to it, only one that has relative mechanisms and one that describes things in a way that is useful within certain conditions.

Do we likewise refute that solid objects don't exist? In broader theory, solid is an illusion. It is only electromagnetism that prevents your hand from moving straight through a tabletop. Not "physical contact." And yet we can also accept that this is just what is meant by physical contact. It is a construct of desciption developed and still used because it is the functional way for us to view it.

I'm a mechanical engineer by trade. What I can tell you is that no one stopped using Newtonian physics. Nobody uses anything else to design things today. It's still fully correct. In fact, using relativity and/or quantum mechanics would be a worse solution. It would be bulky, less intuitive, therefore stifling ease of innovation or fluidity of discretionary usages, and lead to higher frequency of errors, reducing the quality of the final product.

So does Occams not work? Rather it did. It was right. It is irrelevant that you can dig deeper and produce a more general solution. The correct solution today is to still use Newtonian physics for everything terrestrial. A careful follower of science would have never claimed it was any good for anything beyond those boundaries. The truly wonderful thing about science is it literally cannot be wrong. Only a person's interpretation can be wrong. Science never claims to know what it doesn't know. People do. Science never said there wasn't going to be more to it, or that Newtonian physics would work elsewhere. It can't have done as no evidence or experiments showed such. Once we tried, we found the evidence, which is why we then produced new theories.

The article directly backs what I say. Perhaps there is confusion here though. The astronomy example in the article is the opposite of the newtonian example. In that one, while the old model can still produce results, it is clunky. The new model simplifies and provides for cleaner usage. The reverse is true for Newtonian physics. It isn't old stubbornness; we will never stop using newtonian physics as we do because it remains superior. It always will be. It is the true way to go about it.

Again the article backs this. At the end of the day, just like we arrived at what we say and call fact that the planets orbit the sun, we will always say and call fact the obvious functional description of newtonian physics. Just like we will continue to talk about solid objects, even though they don't actually exist.