Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sun, 12 Sep 1999 05:17:53 +0900
Dear Bill,
In my context, the words subjective and objective have the meaning reverse to
yours. I.e.
subjective means what is independent of observation.
Our mind is an example. We cannot change our mind by observation or
interference from the outside. If it seemed to be changed, it is just a look.
We do not change our mind even if we are forced by others. We just pretend to
behave like following them. If our mind looks like changing by the influence
from the outside, it is just an emergence of what we have in mind a priori.
Objective means what depends on observation.
The things outside us can be moved/changed by our observation or interference.
Objective means being object.
In this context my response is the following:
> 1) Where does objective end and subjective begin?
Both do not end. There are two seemingly incompatible things.
>
> 2) Can an objective mathematical model have both
> objective and subjective properties?
It can have a structure that involves the two seemingly contradictory
substructures.
>
> 3) Mathematics doesn't "kick back" like objects do,
> so is there really no hope of obtaining a mathematical
> model that describes real phenomena? Does the ability
> to write it down with symbols demand that it is therefore
> objective?
Mathematics requires us to be subjective. We need to "see" the inside of our
mind in any investigation of mathematics. The inside structure is a given one.
We just find the existing structure in our mind. Mathematics is in this sense
the discovery of our inner structure.
The phenomena are the ones that we see. Thus naturally, what they look like to
us depends on our mind structure. The phenomena never exist without our mind.
They are the reflections of our mind. That the objects can be moved by our
hands is the typical example. Their motion is a reflection of our subjective
decision.
Physics is a subjective summary of how we can influence the outer things. What
we call real phenomena are not the outer existence, but the reflection of our
mind. They just look like being outside our mind, but this is an illusion.
>
> 4) What is the degree of "distortion" experienced by
> an observer? Could the "distortion" sometimes be
> negligible? Or, always be zero?
We put a structure on nature when observing it. This setting is usually based
on what we can do by our hands. Hands require us to overcome distance in
dealing with things. I.e., we usually put the distance structure on nature.
This is the starting point of physics. How can we overcome distance? How can
we treat things over there? The metrical/geometrical structure on nature in
physics comes from this setting/assumption of distance structure on nature.
The view to nature based on the distance requires us to see things distorted.
This is an inevitable distortion, and cannot be zero except for some special
case.
>
> 5) Can the mind imagine a unique correct objective structure?
> Or will the mind always be restricted to contemplating
> multiple consistent objective structures? Optimistically,
> the unique correct objective structure, is the simplest
> model with the best explanation, is it not?
The correct subjective structure is in our mind. The structures outside us are
the reflections of our distance assumption on the outside. The seemingly
contradictory structures between the inside and outside are not the real, but
comes from this assumption we put on the outside. Explanation is the
explanation/justification of this assumption of ourselves, not an explanation
of the objective existence outside us.
>
> 6) Would not an objective structure that allows instantaneous
> communication between its parts, be composed of rigid and
> incompressible objects that transmit displacements due to
> the direct contact between all of the objects?
The inside of us might be modeled as you say, but then it is not a subjective
world. We experience the subject, not see it as an object. The inside is an a
priori given thing, and cannot be seen as an objective thing. If we feel
seeing the inside of us as an object, there is another we that feel so. The
seen we is not we at the time. The real we do not see the transmission of the
signals inside the real we. The we cannot be an object of observation, and the
model as yours cannot model the real we.
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:40 JST