Theorem:
If a large sample of predicates of perception yield a paradox then the institution governing these predicates does not exist objectively. Furthermore, if it is said to exist, then it must only exist subjectively.
Proof:
Let me define some terms first. A predicate of perception under an institution is simply a statement about our opinion on something given something we perceive. The institutions are the laws governing the subject that is in question.
For example, saying “I think that the apple will fall when I drop it” is a tautological predicate under the institution of gravity or more broadly the science of physics. If predicates are stated by a large sample of poorly continuous and connected people (either your “self” in the future or another person in the present (See Parfit)) and those predicates yield a collective paradox, then the institution which governs them does not exist objectively. Here I assume that a predicate is stated with the intention of truth and that all perceptive mechanisms are equal between the persons making the claims.
For example if I say now that “I think I love apples” and you say “I think I don’t love apples” then this yields a paradox under the institution of loving apples. Therefore loving apples does not exist objectively. And if it is said to exist, as it here does because both claims are true to their respective originators, then it only exists subjectively. There is no truth about whether apples are loved, only subjective claims can be made.
Two people are not enough to form a norm given the population. It is important to focus on a “large” sample by which I mean more than half of the population. If I say “I think the apple will fall when I drop it” and you say “I don’t think the apple will fall when I drop it” then it would cause us to believe that the institution of physics does no exist objectively, this is obviously absurd. If, on the other hand, 3 billion people made a claim similar to mine and 3 billion people made a claim similar to yours (assuming a population of 6 billion) then it would be arguable that physics does not exist objectively and the laws of gravity would only be opinions.
Ergo, if a larger sample of the population states a predicate which is not consistent with the rest of the population, then it must mean that the institution which governs these claims does not exist objectively. Furthermore, if it is said to exist, it must only exist subjectively.