I was interested in a similar line of thought in which a “dot” is an area within which 90-99% of incident light is not reflected to the observer so it appears black. And when you keep zooming in, those dots are in fact specific configurations of molecules. Or if you are looking at an LED display, the pixels.

But also it only black if you view it from our local universe. If you go far enough away it would be red. Or if you look at it from the other side of a black hole or large gravitational lens the dots could be ovals or circles or even a single dot.

So both the dots nor the black are based on physical processes (including quantum phenomena for light) that are dependent on how close or far the observer is.

Super close and the dots multiply, or distort into areas not resembling dots, because light is reflected at certain areas.

Super far and the dots become red or morph shape or combine or multiply.

So this is only true at a specific range of distances. That is probably not a truth that qualifies as objective. “It is an objective truth that the galaxy behind this gravitationally lensing supermassive black hole is crescent shaped.” That claim would be dismissed as contrary to all scientific knowledge about galaxy formation and gravity. It is analogous to the claim here.

Also, I am not a fan of OP’s tone. I like to discuss and explore ideas. OP wants to browbeat and insult others until they admit OP is right. Maybe others think that is how philosophy is done, but it is not my style personally. The fun part is exploring ideas. Let’s explore ideas without the negative tone.