Absolutely absurd. Boundaries, whether national or those of personal property, are absolutely and clearly social conventions and have no reality outside of social convention. I can't believe I have underline this point. We can argue about the utility of these social conventions, even about whether they constitute some kind of ideal reality, but in both cases they clearly fail to rise to the level of observable, objective reality. If all signs of human beings vanished, aliens arriving at earth could not tell where one state ended and another began even if the idea made sense to them because borders are not part of reality.

At no time in history have national borders ever been a universally shared reality and frankly, they could only be such by coincidence, not as a reflection of any genuine physical state of affairs beyond the state of mind of every human on earth.

Whether or not a social convention is "real" or not is entirely the point of my original comment. If we throw out arbitrary sets of social conventions and call them fake we effectively operate in our own non-shared reality.

My primary point is that this trend seems to be accelerating from my perspective so it's fitting for online maps to reflect this as well.

"If we throw out arbitrary sets of social conventions and call them fake we effectively operate in our own non-shared reality."

No, we all operate in the same reality no matter what. That is kind of what "reality" is - the set of physical facts which obtain regardless of our particular state of mind or coordinate system, local velocity, etc. The idea that we should elevate some subjective opinions to the level of reality that we expect everyone to share is actually really damaging to the idea of truth and objective reality.

No doubt accidentally, you're advocating for a subjective notion of what is real, not an objective one.

I think that you may be misunderstanding the terminology being used. When someone says that two people operate in a non-shared reality, they mean that their way of perceiving, understanding, and interpreting the world are so different that it becomes difficult for them to communicate effectively or operate effectively in the same culture.

No one is saying that different people are subject to different natural laws. Nor is anyone saying that certain perceptions or interpretations of the world should be elevated to the level of natural laws.

Sorry, but its quite difficult for me to understand the assertion that a failure to agree upon borders is a breakdown of a shared "reality" as anything but an assertion that certain perceptions should be elevated to the level of natural laws.

I don't dispute the utility of shared social conventions and rules. They are very handy, no doubt. But they aren't reality, and, in my experience, the people most vociferously asserting that they are are the jerks.

If two nation states _agree_ on a border because it simplifies administration, then bravo. If two nation states disagree about a border then the problem isn't that one has lost touch with reality. The problem is just a dispute about power and suggesting its a problem with perception of reality is propaganda. At a fundamental level borders aren't real. If there is a conflict over them, the only recourse is to the human beings involved, hopefully through diplomacy, but unfortunately often through violence, but never via an objective process which reveals by experimental or theoretical action an objective truth.

Confusion between that which is real and that which is not is the deepest, most destructive of intellectual maladies.

Shared reality doesn't break down when people disagree. It breaks down when people are unable to understand the other side's perceptions/interpretations enough to understand the disagreement.

As a concrete example, many conservatives in the United States understand border control in terms of national security, sovereignty, cultural integrity, etc. They often do not understand the interpretations that advocates of open borders base their views upon; things like viewing freedom of movement as an inherent human right, seeing borders as a way that corporations undermine labor, seeing Mexicans as having historically inhabited the American South West, etc. As a result, those conservatives misinterpret advocates of open borders as unpatriotic, attempting to undermine America's sovereignty, attempting to replace their culture, etc.

Basically, the issue isn't the disagreement, it's lacking the shared understanding of the situation that would allow discussion of the disagreement.

Boundaries are real in the sense that they have real impacts on people's lives. If you cross a boundary you aren't supposed to then you are likely to get arrested or shot. Which boundary you are born in can determine which school you go to. Etc.

No one is saying that those boundaries cannot change in the future or that if history had been different then today's boundaries might be different.

My point is that lamenting the fact that nation states disagree about boundaries as evidence that shared reality is breaking down is absurd because nation states have rarely agreed, as a matter of course, on where boundaries are. Indeed, even personal property boundaries are often not as certain as you'd like. My property has a large triangle of land which is disputed with my neighbor, for example, because of differences in surveys at different times.

At the level of political science, most people understand international relations to be, more or less, a sort of state of anarchy, where boundaries are nothing but a bare reflection of power. From this point of view, most calls for "agreement" about a disputed boundary are nothing more than demands by one party for the other to accede to their claim of what they own. I personally believe that this kind of bickering by nation states is pretty far beneath the dignity of the label of "real" and all human beings would be better off if we appreciated that fact.

I think that people can still have a shared reality as long as they understand that there is a disagreement. For example, Google could have done what many map makers do and explicitly indicate where borders are disputed.

It seems like you are getting hung up on the idea that "real" means that something can be proven using physical laws. For most people in most circumstances, that's not a particularly useful way of defining real. Usually, "real" is defined as something like "the facts on the ground that impact our lives".

Take for example, Taiwan. The facts that people mean when they talk about Taiwan's borders being real are something like: Taiwan's status is in dispute between China and most of the rest of the world. In order to maintain diplomatic relations and prevent war, most of the world has adopted a policy of officially ignoring the dispute while unofficially supporting Taiwan's independence. In terms of day to day governance, Taiwan is independent from China. For example, the reality of the Taiwanese border is that there is a dispute between China and most of the rest

I've got no problem with people informally using the word real in the way you suggest (and in fact I only reference things like electron charge as exemplars of the objective, not to suggest that we can only speak of the brutally physical as real). Nevertheless, however, asserting that a border is "real" or ought to be thought of as real is not a description of "the facts on the ground that impact our lives," it is an assertion that some particular state of affairs should be acceded to by some set of people. Characterizing it as a dispute about reality is deeply disingenuous.

> I think that people can still have a shared reality as long as they understand that there is a disagreement. For example, Google could have done what many map makers do and explicitly indicate where borders are disputed.

But that's exactly what they do already, when allowed to.

Have a look at Jammu Kashmir. If you're not located in India or Pakistan, the disputed borders are shown as dotted lines rather than the normal solid lines for national borders. If you look at the details of any location in the region (e.g. the city of Jammu), it won't show any country.

Now, if you're in India, it'll not display any disputed borders and instead show the entire area being a part of India. But showing the dotted line isn't an option, showing these borders is required by the local laws. And you wouldn't want a multinational company to try to flout the laws of the countries they're operating in, would you?

>[...] nation states have rarely agreed, as a matter of course, on where boundaries are [...]

There are far far more contemporary examples of nations agreeing on where the boundaries are than examples of them not agreeing. The status quos is generally agreement.

I'd be willing to hazard a guess that very few borders on earth between nation states have no disputed areas, but in any case, even if this were true it is a state of affairs no more than a few hundred years old and many borders were arbitrarily drawn by world powers sometimes even for sinister reasons (for a good example, read about the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan). Throughout most of history firm borders were simply impossible to define. I object strongly to raising them to the level of a "shared reality."

While I agree with your general point, “are absolutely and clearly social conventions and have no reality outside of social convention” is overstating things. Differences in policies over time results in changes to the regions that would be clearly visible to aliens. (Guess where the border is: https://i.imgur.com/IW1JBAP.png)

No credit for saying “all signs of humans beings vanish”, the same logic applied to biology would suggest that life was a social construct, as if all signs of life were removed, there'd be no evidence of life.

> National borders are very real to most nations. Similarly, someone's specific plot of real estate feels very real to them as well

The borders of plots of land are frequently disputed. There are plenty of places in the US where two or more deeds define overlapping properties (which should obviously never be the case, but here we are!).

Country borders are no different, and it's unsurprising that they very frequently disagree. The US and Canada have disputed territory, even. To suggest that borders are "real" in any sense implies that there's one correct, canonical set of boundaries. But there's not and never has been. There's no singular authority that decides what the borders should be. Wars are literally being fought right now over borders.