# [time 778] Re: [time 775] Re: [time 771] Re: Noumenon and Phenomenon

Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:53:06 +0900

Dear Bill,

Bill <WDEshleman@aol.com> wrote:

Subject: [time 775] Re: [time 771] Re: Noumenon and Phenomenon

> Hitoshi,
>
> [WDE]
> > > Kant believes that the category of cause and effect applies only to
> > > phenomena; cause and effect does not apply to the noumena.

This statement seems to have a common part with Leibniz' thought as referred
to at the end of this response.

> > >
> > > The question is then, how do we approach discovery and analysis
> > > of prospective mathematical candidates to represent the noumena?
> > >
> > > The key, I suggest, is in the mathematical meaning of a
> > > "suspension of cause and effect" for the noumena. This
> > > "suspension of cause and effect" implies at least two intuitive
> > > features that the noumena might possess:
> > >
> > > 1) The noumena is an orthogonalization of cause and
> > > effect, or simply an orthogonalization of appropriate
> > > phenomena.
> > > 2) Communication between the appropriate phenomena,
> > > via the noumena, would be instantaneous.
> > >
> >
> > I wonder how the ""suspension of cause and effect" for the noumena"
implies
> > the "orthogonalization of cause and effect" and how this
> "orthogonalization"
> > yields the "instantaneousness" of "communication between the
appropriate
> > phenomena via the noumena." Could you explain more? I seem not to
> understand
> > the word "noumena" in your context enough.
>
> To me the noumenon is a pure mathematical object with invisible structure,
> visible only through its properties; i.e., its appropriate phenomena.
Since
> I
> supply intuitions only, maybe you can tell me what made you decide in the
> first place, to orthogonalize QM and GR.

This is not my decision but mathematical intuition led me to it. The first
thing I noticed on April 22, 1992 just after I had finsihed my investigation
of N-body QM problem was that the Enss result can be interpreted to define
local time for each local system. Shortly after that I noticed that the local
time can be identified with the proper time of GR as the proper time of the
center of mass of an LS. Then the independence became clear and it was quite
natural to look the space of the possible states of the universe as the
formula (1) in axiom 1 in time_I.tex. This formula (1) gives the
orthogonality (or orthogonalization) of QM and GR. I note that the
independence is sufficient for the consistent unification of QM and GR.
Orthogonality is just a convenient way to actualize the independence,
although I have not tried to find other ways to actualize this independence.

> If Kant didn't inspire you, who or
> what did?

Nobody or nothing did it. Just my mathematyical intuition. But I think this
kind of inspiration must have emerged in many minds already.

> Was it an a priori concept in your mind that managed to surface?

I do not think it was a priori _only_ in my mind, but I think it is a priori
in anyone's mind that manages to surface. Anyone has its own inside: The
outside exists if and only if the inside exists. Then the discrepancy between
the two leads one to think them independent, otherwise he/she cannot be
consistent.

> By instantaneous I mean, in your case, that a GR deflection is immediately
> followed by an appropriate QM deflection propagated faster than light
> (or infinite) speed, and vice versa for a QM deflection.

This would be rephrased as a consistency requirement for the inside and the
outside. If any delay existed, consistency would be lost. In this sense, this
FTL requirement seems to be the same as Libniz' "pre-established harmony"
that would explain the windowless monads behave in harmony with the outside.

Perhaps, we might
> say that cause and effect for phenomena, is replaced with vice versa for
> the noumena.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bill
>

Best wishes,
Hitoshi

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