[time 761] Subjective reality: Re: [time 758] My Paradigm Shift, a guidance question

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:36:20 +0900

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your mail. I think this mail of yours should be posted also to time
list, so I took the liberty to post this response to it.

Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [time 758] My Paradigm Shift, a guidance question

> Dear Hitoshi,
> We seem to be hitting a philosophical brick wall in the matter of the
> nature of space-time. I completely agree with your observation that
> ""objective reality" is a nice "working hypothesis" which have been
> working for some hundreds years". The difficulty, as pointed out by
> Matti is that "One can give all this up but I really wonder how one
> could reproduce present day physics without concept of spacetime."
> [time755]
> His complaint is very typical! Why is is so hard for these people to
> understand that we are not asking that "space-time" be given up? We are
> merely pointing out that space-time is a "look", as you said. It is how
> the contents of any observation are framed.
> Perhaps the difficulty lies in the difficulty of considering that each
> observer is a quantum mechanical local system and is orthogonal
> (independent) from all other LSs.
> Is my idea that "LSs can have a "common space-time" if and only if
> their framings agree" making any sense? I see that the way that a
> collections observers can have "overlappings" in their respective
> framings (posets of observations) and that this generates the illusion
> of a common space-time for all, but I am not sure how to phrase this
> mathematically.
> I had hoped that the work of Peter Wegner would help us, by giving us a
> formalism with which to created a consistent model that avoids both the
> need for absolute initiality (or finality) of time (in the sense of the
> causal ordering of events) and the need for an a priori ordering of
> events, but it seems that I am failing in motivating the discussion in
> that direction.
> I would like to better understand how the "canonical conjugate operator
> to H", re: [time 739] fits into your theory. I am trying to consider the
> implications of communication between LS. I believe that the notion of
> bisimulation could give us a way to consistently define interaction
> between LSs, without the usual Galilean baggage of "energy transfer".
> What would you recommend I do? I am becoming disheartened... :-(
> Perhaps I should focus on the particulars of LS theory...

What has been lacking in science is the investigation of the inside of us,
_without disturbing it_. Science has been violent to nature and when it
treats/considers the self/the-inside-of-us, it has been so too.

Nobody wants others to be violent to himself/herself. One would produce unexpected
results when treated gently with encouragement, while he/she becomes stubborn/hard
when treated violently and discouragingly. Investigation of self without violating
it would produce unexpected ability/results of ours that could not be achieved by
the passing "objective" science.

The existing/passing objective investigation looks others as objects, so it can
assume that it has the authority/right to "cut" them into pieces as it wants. This
is the unconscious assumption of Galilei's "objective reality." The modern has
been an violent age, the cause of which lies in this unconscious justification of
violence under the name of sacred "objective" science.

The recent research of mind is in the same stream. It regards mind as "an object,"
which could be cut into pieces/parts. This would not clarify what mind is, since
the mind is not in its parts, but is in its wholeness. It would not appear to us
until we stop keeping to see things "objective reality."

The "objective" investigation has cropped its harvest enough to the extent that
there is almost nothing remaining that it can exploit anymore. The understanding
of spacetime would be sufficient for the time being. The results the modern age
obtained would be maintained as they are as the GR aspects of our world. The next
achievement would emerge from our respect to ourselves/the-inside-of-us.

I do not make any prediction: Just this direction would open an unseen world.

Best wishes,

> Kindest regards,
> Stephen
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bill,
> >
> > Bill <WDEshleman@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Hitoshi,
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Bill
> > Best wishes,
> > Hitoshi

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:41 JST