What certainly is, certainly is not?

            “Reality” is an odd term.  I recall my freshman year of college, where as a precocious, bordering on pretentious lad, I wrote a paper in which I argued that any notion of “reality” was inherently subjective, as any observer is decidedly imperfect.  Without even introducing such esoteric concepts as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that observers alter that which they are observing simply by observing it (try saying that three times quickly), this argument is rather simple.  Human beings can only see a very limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light), only hear very limited frequencies of sound waves, and only perceive those particles which are composed of the same matter as our bodies.  So we cannot see infrared light, nor hear the high-pitched noises of bats, nor feel the neutrinos which pass through our bodies daily without incident.  So what?  Furthermore, we cannot construct a machine which perceives every wavelength of light, nor every frequency of sound, nor every particulate which comprises our universe.  Again, so what?

            The fact is, that which we assume to be “true” or “real” is often, simply, not.  For 1500 years, Aristotle’s view of physical reality was the truth…except for fact that in “reality,” it was false.  Newton’s ideas supplanted Aristotle’s for several hundred years.  Newton was a brilliant scholar whose notions of mechanics define high school physics.  Thing is, he’s wrong too.  Einstein did away with Newton’s supremacy, and in turn, Einstein’s notions were altered, augmented, or debunked outright.  The fact is, “truth” is an ephemeral concept.  Today’s textbooks are tomorrow’s kindling, replaced with newer and greater wisdom.  Once again, so what?  As a society, we are enthralled by fantasy, science fiction, impressionistic artwork, and countless other genres whose objectives are, among other things, attempts to portray the world as something other than what it truly is…ah, but there’s the rub.  I contend that the “real” world is not what the “real” world is!  Whether it is special relativity’s insistence that the inexorable flow of time is, in fact, a matter of relative velocity or plastic surgeons’ insistence that Pamela Anderson’s breasts are truly the size of watermelons, what is “true” is frequently also false. 

            There seem to be two fully legitimate ways of handling this revelation.  One is to utterly insist that that which is, is, and that is that.  Not only does that sentence trouble me grammatically, it sounds freakishly like the rants of the stubborn, the incurious, and the incurably old-fashioned.   The alternative is to realize that neither I, nor you, nor anyone else you or I are likely to encounter has any objective notion of “reality” or “truth.”  I would embrace this one wholeheartedly, were it not for the fact that my entire life…or at least the part after potty training, has been spent pursuing and communicating knowledge.  So…if all that is known is suspect, and temporal, what the hell am I doing?  Seriously…anyone have a good answer for me? 

            I’ll try my best:  As human beings, we continue to refine and perfect that which will be forever imperfect.  We add to a body of knowledge that is necessarily, and unavoidably incomplete.  After all, our lives are finite blips in a seemingly infinite expanse.  So we study and learn what we are able.  Can’t really complain.