John
"Occurrence is not objective"
Of course it is. Though please watch how I use the labels. We receive physical input. The sensory systems do not 'seek' or 'create' it. The output is knowledge/belief, and at the individual level. The receptor device of a sensory system has to be in the line of travel of something physical in order to receive. The only difference between a brick receiving and a sentient organism, is that the brick cannot process the information available. While what we receive is physically existent, from the perspective of the recipient sensory system it is a representation of something else. Both in the sense that the recipient sensory system can then process information captured upon interaction, whereas the brick cannot, and because what is physically received is the result of an interaction with something else which is physically existent.
So 'occurrence' is both objective in the sense that it is independent of the mechanism that detects it, and because being a particular function means it is a closed system, ie it is objectively possible to know it, albeit only from within it. Hence objective knowledge is the equivalent of the form of existence we can be aware of. There may or may not be alternatives, but this is irrelevant since we cannot be aware of them. And for clarification, 'aware' includes verified hypothesis, ie not belief, but the equivalent of validated direct experience. In other words, what would have been, had the process been perfect.
Forget all this torturous stuff concerning the subsequent processing. Yes, it is interesting, and yes, it needs to be understood. But that is not physics, which is concerned with what was physically received, and what physically created that.
Paul
PS: on the subject of 'hypothetical' or 'indirect' experience, this para defines what I am referring to, ie it has nothing to do with the subsequent processing, or philosophy, just potential physical issues which need to be overcome:
29 In respect of these phenomena being fit for the functional purpose acquired by evolution, given that their physical properties probably have an influence on their ability to capture and transmit representations, there are three types of issue:
-non receipt: despite existence having occurred, no representation thereof has yet been, or ever will be, received. That is, no recipient sentient organism was in the line of travel of the effect, or it ceased to exist en route due to interaction with another existent phenomenon, or it has not yet reached any known organism. Another possibility is that the existent reality had a property which does not interact with the phenomena, ie nothing was generated as a result of an interaction.
-deficiency: this revolves around the occurrences within any given physically existent state being too many, too small, too frequent, etc, for the phenomena to cope with, ie they are unable to properly differentiate all that occurred, and hence the resultant representation in its original form is deficient in some way.
