You have no way to know the objective reality ever. And atanu is not claiming this. Below I have cited four different sets of studies that all suggest that realism is not tenable in light of quantum mechanics. They suggest that what we actually see is only the dashboard and not the objective reality out there.
1.
Objects of consciousness
The full paper by Hoffman and Prakash is fortunately available at the above link.
Using evolutionary games, the authors establish that the natural selection could not have favoured a consciousness geared towards finding the truth -- perception only guides the adaptive behaviour. Hoffman et al suggest, based on considerations of both quantum physics and evolutionary biology, a model of 'Conscious agents' with which they are able to arrive correctly at certain quantum predictions. They simply assign the physical parameters such as mass etc. to the conscious agents rather than to particles. The full paper is a fascinating read.
Donald Hoffman's study suggests that what we see (internally) of the external world is a dashboard and not the actual external world. Seeing the truth as it is can be inefficient and even fatal. His evolutionary model game shows that the 'Truth' cannot be the result of natural selection. Hoffman further proposes and constructs a model with inter-linked conscious agents to validate his thesis.
There are three separate scientific findings that support Donald Hoffman's thesis that what we see of the universe is a dashboard and not the universe itself. These three works are listed below with short descriptions so that readers (if any) can drill deep themselves.
2.
An experimental test of non-local realism
Simon Gröblacher et al. 2007 in 'An experimental test of non-local realism' destroy the hope for non-local realism -- that there is an objective reality independent of the observation itself.
3.
Relational Quantum Mechanics
Physicist Carlo Rovelli in his
relational quantum mechanics (RQM), shows that there should be no absolute, observer-independent physical quantities. All physical quantities—the whole physical universe—must be relative to the observer. The notion that we all share the same physical environment must, therefore, be an illusion.
It seems dangerously close to solipsism but it is not if seen from the perspective of ‘objective idealism’. Making sense of RQM by inferring that our surrounding environment is essentially mental—a view called ‘objective idealism’—avoids solipsism.
Massimiliano Proietti and collaborators at Heriot-Watt University, in the U.K., seem to have validated RQM of Carlo Rovelli.
Experimental test of local observer-independence
I note that RQM essentially upholds the Copenhagen Interpretation. Thus this version of Quantum Mechanics suggests that there may well be no objective physical world.
3.
Cognitive Dynamics: From Attractors to Active Inference - IEEE Journals & Magazine
Karl Friston et al., 2014 have shown that, if an organism is to represent the states of the external environment in order to properly navigate this environment, it must do so in an encoded, inferential manner. If the organism were to simply mirror the states of the external environment in its own internal states, it would not be able to maintain its structural integrity. Perceptual encoding is necessary for the organism to resist entropy and thus remain alive.
The findings of the above three studies support each other but seen from the perspective of ‘realism’ seem weird. On the other hand, seen from the perspective of ‘objective idealism’ these three findings make sense.
So, actually the objective reality is never available to you via mind-senses. Only direct perception of self-awareness is unmediated by mind-senses.
I'm unclear how "fundamental" reality is distinct from just "reality." Reality is that which exists.
