Reality is an Absolute

Thank you for your response."Can you design a test that will prove that you aren't just a dream of a sleeping butterfly?"This is a question that is based off of the debate of what exactly IS reality. This has nothing to do with it being either objective or subjective. Lets take for example the theory of a subatomic universe, whether or not it is true has no meaning here, but we do know for fact that the laws of nature are NOT subjective, it is physically impossible to create or destroy matter based off of will or belief.Subjective- taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" [1]It wouldn't matter if reality were just the dream of a butterfly (though that is absurd) the fact of the matter is nothing in this universe can be affected by ones own consciousness, it never has and never will. Again I assert that it is only by the product of a brain that causes the world to be seen differently. Radio waves and gamma rays, UV light etc. cannot be SEEN by humans but we know for a fact that it is there. As well, Con continually uses the word "Prove" which is the basis for all his flawed rebuttals when I have already refuted that it is impossible to prove anything without reality being objective. He states I have no evidence, a reason WHY reality is objective. To put it simply, reality must be objective before the thought of 'why reality is objective' is even possible. Consciousness depends on an independent/absolute reality.In the words of Ayn Rand "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness." [2]"Pro's assertion is based on circular logic, being that proving reality requires reality, which is based on reality. This is a perfect argument as to why reality isn't absolute. We can only define what we call reality with words that we base off of what we perceive to be reality. "The flaw here is your use of the term circular logic, if it is circular logic isn't it something irrefutable? (As long as it is true logic of course)Here's a scenario: "How does one test/measure something?" "Well, by using instruments and their perceptions of those instruments." "What are those perceptions based off of?" "Well, by percepts." "And what are those based off of?" "Well...reality." "And what is reality?" "Well... What we perceive!" "So you just said that reality was based of what we perceive which is based off of percepts which are based off of perceiving? Wouldn't that mean an endless string of perceiving percepts which perceive the perceived percepts?"Percepts - That which is perceived [3]Finally, I will restate: It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove anything, anything at all, without first there being an independent, objective, absolute reality. Secondly our perceptions and senses ARE able to perceive reality as objectively as possible, that is using reason to file out what is irrational and what isn't, what is based off of internal bias and what isn't based on internal bias. If they weren't able to do that we wouldn't be living because completely irrational creatures (that is creatures able to act against reason) would not survive in this world. WE, that is 'all living creatures' are a testament to our perceptions being able to perceive an absolute reality. [1] http://www.webster-dictionary.org...[2] http://aynrandlexicon.com...[3] http://www.webster-dictionary.org...