Lol, does that mean that objective reality ceases to exist if the said entity judges it to be non existent, or is reality the only thing that must be true.
Reality (objective ) is the only truth that remains regardless on whether you or I exist.
The problem is that you are making an assumption about "reality" that it is independently existing, but one can relax that assumption. What we think of as "reality" may indeed be independent of you or me or the human race, and yet still not be "real" as we commonly think of it.
Everything we know about the world comes from our senses, but it is a simple matter to show that our senses are in fact an elaborate interpretation in our brains of impulses transmitted by our nervous system.
In many cases we already know that these interpretations could in a certain sense be said to not reflect the underlying reality of the world. For example, we never say "Wow, that complex longitudinal pressure wave is moving through the air has a high amplitude!" We say "Wow, that noise is loud." Our brain converts what are merely pressure variations in the air into what we conceive of as "sounds." A similar process occurs with heat, our brains interpret molecular vibrations in a peculiar way, such that what we experience does not intuitively "feel" like a vibration at all.
It can also be shown that the signals can be faked. Stimulation of the brain's visual center can create the illusion of lights, for example, even if there are no lights for the subject to see.
So, all the senses could, in fact, be leading us astray and not be any more accurate a representation of the world than "sound" accurately conveys the impression that sound waves are merely pressure variations moving in the air (or other medium). Worse, since those signals can be faked, we can never be absolutely certain that our impressions of the world, conveyed through the senses are in any sense real. If a Matrix-style artificial "reality" were sufficiently detailed, we'd simply have no way to distinguish it from you imagine to be reality.
One can, and most do, choose to believe that the senses are reasonably accurate, and that the world they allow us to perceive is not being artificially generated, but that itself is a philosophical position that one must hold without evidence. That position, and its contrary, are both fundamentally unproveable.
If a sufficiently advanced civilization, with sufficiently advanced computers, were running a simulation of your life (or the human condition generally) in a computer, that simulation might include you in all your complexity. In such a simulation, you would be aware of your world, but not its virtual nature, and you'd believe and experience all the same things you do now--and be none the wiser. Consider though, that simulations are often run more than once. They are often repeated countless times. If there is one real universe, but countless simulations of that reality, and we could never tell one from the other, then one could argue that it is more likely that we are in one of the far more numerous simulations, than that we are in the singular and unique real world. (In that sort of world, moreover, there really would be a "Creator", or multiple such figures.)
You can choose not to believe in such things, and it's hard to imagine how one lives if they are taken seriously, but it is a philosophical choice to ignore them.
