" Ultimate reality isn’t known right now. " I disagree. The problem lies in what we mean when we say "reality". Is it the everyday reality of our experience (intrinsic) or the reality of the universe apart from us (extrinsic)? For the world to make sense to me, the two need to meet or one flow into or from the other. One (the intrinsic) is more subjective, the other (extrinsic) less so, which allows us to assume that it exists whether we're here to experience it or not. It's the former I mostly concentrated on which we perceive in different ways, depending on our unique points of view. Therefore, making sense of it all requires questioning our perceptions or observations (as an everyday experience or as formal study of quantum physics).
This is why I mentioned and cited the Innocence Project reference showing how flawed our methods of perceiving an event (reality) actually are. That alone should make us wonder how it is we see things and what it is we assume reality to be.
With due respect to my hero Rene Descartes, I would say that "reality is known". Even if our reality consists of a common delusion that we live in a country with streets and laws and that we go to work every day, etc and that if it only exists in a dream, then THAT is our reality.
" Our core thinking has to be grounded in reality. " Which reality? How else can we describe reality (at least the every-day kind) other than as an observable experience? How do we incorporate the tragic events of an automobile accident we witness other than via our senses? How do we account for the fact that if you ask ten witnesses to the accident, you may get ten different accounts of what happened?
I realize someone will point out that one thing appears to be real: an automobile accident happened. The problem is that not everything we judge as reality is that concrete. Until we thoroughly question that experience or object with experimentation and logic, we may be left with different (possibly contradictory) versions of "reality". That's why I mentioned the example about the boulder in the middle of the road. One reality approximates another reality. The difference can be so insignificant as to not matter (like when all agree a car accident took place). But there is always the chance that it may matter significantly depending on the subject in question (like when we try to determine whose fault it was).
" While the observer may alter an object, it is only because the nature of the object allows it to be altered. " How does a person determine the nature of which objects or events allow themselves to be altered? How do we ascertain its true "nature" while not assuming that what we think is its real nature is that indeed and not our version of it? How do we recognize the " reality & function " of nature unless we can first ascertain that what we are referring to as "nature" is accurate and not just an assumed version of reality?
The answer to me is that, while assuming that everyone has a view, even a very similar view or reality, we need to question and examine our personal reality and that of others in order to determine if it approximates the truth. The truth is in the methods. This is not an easy task and, at least for me, doesn't always bring answers. But at least I'm willing to know that often, I live under assumptions. In t he end, like Descartes implies, whether I'm really dreaming I'm writing this and will wake up any second now, at least this is MY reality.