IMO
You seem to be advocating the formation of personal artificial constructs of reality over investigating and understanding actual reality. How do you prioritize and reconcile between the conflicting artificial constructs of reality of individuals?
Political choices and decisions are being informed by these artificial constructs of reality that affect all members of society. I would much rather have these decisions informed by our best understanding of actual reality, and that those choices adapt and change as our understanding grows.
Firstly, I'm not advocating anything at all. As regards political choices, they will continue to be informed by whichever interest groups have the most money, power and influence on the decision makers. I'd like to stay out of that, for now anyway.
I simply make the observation that any efforts to investigate and understand 'actual reality', require first of all that we define our terms, and secondly that we acknowledge that there is simply no way to observe external reality without interacting with it, and thereby affecting it. Quantum contextuality rules out the possibility of the neutral observer perceiving reality as it would occur, were she not present observing it. Meanwhile, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle informs us that we cannot obtain exact simultaneous values about multiple qualities of an entity or object. There are limits to how much information we can hold about the state of an entity in a dynamic universe, and there is no fixed, privileged point from which to observe that entity.
You will presumably be aware that there is currently no consensus among quantum physicists, regarding the ontological implications or interpretation of quantum theory. The development of ever more sophisticated instruments for gathering and reviewing evidence empirically, does not appear to be bringing such a consensus any nearer, nor does it solve the problem of the impact both the instruments and their operators have, on the phenomena being measured. The scientists, their equipment, the laboratory, and the subject of the experiment are in an entangled state, and any division between these sub-systems of the whole, is essentially arbitrary.
So physics leaves us, philosophically, with a conundrum. Either we accept that science is
not able to provide us with a complete, coherent explanation of the natural world, a conclusion which would appear to vindicate Niels Bohr, but would be most unsatisfactory to Einstein and Stephen Hawking; or we can continue our search for objective reality, whilst recognising the awkward and bewildering truth that our perceptions of the world will always be framed by our particular perspective within it. We are in the world looking out, while holding an image or model of the world in our minds. What we talk about when we talk about reality, is an abstraction, our mind's interpretation of the symbols and patterns it deducts from the information brought to it by our senses. In that sense, all constructs of reality are artificial, being functions of the mind.
