Mon, 13 Sep 1999 03:28:41 EDT
In a message dated 9/11/99 4:16:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> 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
> We do not change our mind even if we are forced by others. We just pretend
> behave like following them. If our mind looks like changing by the
> 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
> Objective means being object.
I agree, especially since my dictionary confirms your words. Now, when
I think of my philosophy (opinion) of the structure of reality, I can identify
where I went astray. My opinion is that there is an underlying structure
for reality that contains objects (Kant's noumenon) that are significantly
different from the objects (phenomenon) that we observe. I notice now
that both of these levels have objects to be "objective" about even though
we can observe only phenomenon due to "subjective" limitations of the
process of observation. My error was to apply "objective" to the level of
noumenon and "subjective" to the level of phenomenon. Both of these
levels are in ways objective even though one is invisible.
To solve this invisibility problem I give humans the ability to guess
mathematical structures for the noumenon. These "invisible" mathematical
structures, though independent of observation, would express phenomenon
as mathematical properties of the noumenon. I now want to treat both
levels "objectively," but due to the invisibility of the level of noumenon,
I am tempted to concede that I can no other than treat it subjectively;
a reversal from my previous error. It stands to reason that an object
that only has a mathematical structure (but no physical structure),
"requires us to be subjective."
Might I say that your orthogonalization of QM an GR is the noumenon of
your Theory of Local Systems and Local Times?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:40 JST