An almost identical article, on the same subject, was shared here in a thread not too long ago, with a nearly identical clickbait-y thread title and a nearly identical "click on this" OP with no context and no evidence of any thought expended by the OP.
It is difficult to do justice to the intellectual laziness behind this kind of impulse, or to the sheer number of logical flaws and leaps behind the notion that any of this applies to the objectivity-subjectivity debate within audio.
What popular interpretations of the "we do not experience any objective reality directly" idea always fail to take into account is the basic scientific principle of repeatability. To pick a random example, the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and is known. The measurement has been taken and confirmed over and over and over and over again 1000s of times, over several centuries, by 100s or 1000s of humans, using a wide variety of instruments in a wide variety of experimental conditions.
In order for the speed of light to be a "subjective" perception of some unknown, inaccessible, and - most important for the "objectivity is not a thing" argument - constantly changing actual reality, then all of those experimenters in all those times and places must have had subjective experiences of the measurement of the speed of light that were bizarrely in sync with each other. When they consulted their measuring instruments and the result came up the same as it always does, perhaps their instruments were all actually displaying something different that different people would have read as a different number - but miraculously, everyone who looked at the results happened to see the same number. And miraculously, the "unreliable," "not really real," "subjective" result every experimenter got happened to be exactly the same as the result gotten by every other experimenter. What an amazing coincidence that the actual movement of light might not be a constant, and the readout of the measurement instrument might not actually have said what the experimenter thought it said, and the measurement instrument might not actually have looked anything like the experimenter's eyes told them it looked like, and on and on and on - and yet the "incorrect," "subjective" perceptions all lined up perfectly with each other.
That might all be true: there is nothing truly objective about any of our perceptions - but the difference between what we perceive and the actual reality is a
meaningless difference because we all experience it the same way. It doesn't need to be "true" in an absolute sense in order to be
real in that it structures our understanding of the world and our physical experience of the world. Photons that come into contact with us at one frequency look like a color; photons that come into contact with us at another frequency don't look like anything but give us sunburn. Some people are less susceptible to sunburn than others, and some people are partially or entirely colorblind - but we all know, understand, and experience the difference between visible light and ultraviolet light. Gamma radiation above a certain amount will kill all of us, regardless of how and when we perceive or don't perceive the radiation.
Similarly, in audio, you can play anyone some music over a stereo system and if the amplifier has tone controls you can turn the bass knob all the way down and then all the way up, and they will hear a clear difference. Even if they are deaf they will likely feel a difference between the bass all the way down and all the way up (assuming the speakers have sufficient bass response and the volume is loud enough in the room to produce the requisite vibrations). This is universal, and therefore it is objective in any meaningful sense of the term. Now, it could certainly be that if I could magically be transported into someone else's brain, I might be surprised that their actual perceptual experience of "yeah, the bass went way down and then it went way up" would not sound like it does to me in my brain.
But if we all agree that when you turn the bass knob up and down it changes the bass, and if we all agree that changed bass impacts the lower-frequency tones that you can feel as much as you hear, and we can use a common (or apparently common) language to trigger responses in our brains that we experience as understanding what others are saying, then it doesn't actually matter if our perceptions are identical. If what you hear as bass is something that I actually hear as treble, then that will have repercussions and we will not be able to proceed with life and activities as if we both hear the same thing. If we
can proceed as if we both hear the same thing, then any difference in what we "actually" hear is meaningless and for all intents and purposes there
is no difference.
To put it most simply, the fact that we are organisms with specific, limited sensory organs does not mean that your favorite high-distortion tube amp is secretely higher-fidelity than a more linear, lower-distortion, lower-noise amplifier. And it does not mean that Audioquest interconnects actually produce better sound even though they measure the same (or worse) as generic ones.