Hitoshi Kitada (email@example.com)
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 00:20:14 +0900
Bill <WDEshleman@aol.com> wrote:
Subject: [time 753] Re: [time 751] My Paradigm Shift
> In a message dated 9/11/99 4:16:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > 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
> > to
> > 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
> > Objective means what depends on observation.
> > The things outside us can be moved/changed by our observation or
> > interference.
> > 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
> 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?
Yes. A simple discovery of local time notion made me notice the invisible
relation between QM and GR. The rest is a primitive work. But by this I
noticed a similarity of the relation between QM and GR with the relation
between the inside and outside of us. This is a new working hypothesis I
propose instead of Galilei's "objective reality."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:41 JST