Each genus has its supposed "objective" view because its members look similar to the world. However, they only perceive them from their subjective point of view, the aims and their midpoints, which are in the brain.

It's not like a computer, who for example objectively takes pictures and calculates according to this information. 

The less the mental goals contribute, the better one can objectively map them (e.g. with a camera).

When photographing, light strikes a lens that creates a graphic.

So, it's almost the same as with the reception of light by the human eye - only that this is then processed by the brain according to its goals. This is the subjective view.

With a photo this psychic treatment is omitted. Therefore, one speaks of the objective view. (As soon as you look at it, usually subjective is projected into it.)

This is the same with every photo, no matter in which dimension it was taken. And it does not matter if they are macro or microcosm images.

It is of course not the case that the camera captures an image as the world always is. But one, how the world is in one moment from one perspective.

The possibility of photography emerged in the 19th century. Accordingly, philosophers who lived before knew nothing about it. Likewise, they did not know how the brain works - that the world is changed by his goals.

Descartes, for example, who lived in the 17th century, came to the conclusion: I think, therefore I am." Because he questioned everything, felt the world as a dream, so to speak, there was ultimately nothing objective for him. Except for his thinking that he couldn't deny.

Seen in this way, there are as many worlds as there are living beings.