How can the notion of "objective reality" be defined?
The question (in non-physics terms) is IMO a series of oxymorons:
"Objective" anything (unless we imply unknow(n)/able features) is
restricted to whatever the mind has interpreted upon impact(?) it received. Eo
ips 'objective' is 'subjective'. "Reality" ditto, what WE accept as
'reality' - so objective reality is indeed callable some
subjective virtuality. "Defined" however is pure mind-work, the epitome of
subjective, virtual activity. It seems GL concentrates on the "observable world"
(>>White Rabbits to be filtered out of the observable world<<)
which brings the discussion down to Earth.
"Frame of reference" is IMO mindset, with all its fundaments.
Seems strongly relatable with '1st person' (GL).
">we all know that human beings do not think according to >formal
The 'formality' (in human identification) is subject to inadequacies
(like >Human systems are full of inconsistencies, errors, etc...
all as identified by the human mind. I doubt whether this is the only
(logical?) system applicable? in which case our 'errors' may be OK in another
view. Maybe more and for us controversial ones are OKable in some other system
(beyond human capabilities).
I don't feel like discussing the dilemma (1 and 2) exposed by GL.
(What I want to add - as a joke maybe - is a 'Freudian' afterthought to the
example which GV gave to the arithmetic human error: ...8x7 = 65... which points
to German to be right:
8x7 = 6 und 5zig. He did not write 37 or 143 - Just for the fun of
it. Excuse) - JM
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:33
Subject: First Person Frame of
I reread your post of 5/11/2004 and it
raised some questions and a possible paradox involving the idea that the
"notion of first person is absolutely not formalizable." (see below,
for a quotation from your post)
<< It may be that
using the observer as starting points will force White Rabbits to be filtered
out of the
<< observable world
again I totally agree. It *is* what is proved in my thesis. I have done two
>>1) I have given a proof that if we are machine then
physics must be redefined as a
>>science which isolates and exploits
a (first person plural) measure on the set of all
histories. The proof is rigorous, I would say definitive (unless some
>>error of course), although provably unformalizable (so
that only 1 person can grasp it).
>>2) I provide a mathematical
confirmation of comp by showing that (thanks to Godel,
Solovay ...) we can literally interview a universal machine, acting like a
>>---by which I mean we will have only a third person
discourse with her. BUT we can
>>interview her about the possible
1-person discourse. That is a "tour de force" in the sense
the notion of first person is absolutely not formalizable (and so we
>>define it in any third person way). But by using in a
special way ideas
>>from Plato's Theaetetus + Aristotle-Kripke modal
logic + Godel's incompleteness
>>discovery make the "tour de force"
>>Here I can only be technical or poetical, and
because being technical seems
>>yet premature I will sum up by
saying that with comp, the plenitude is just the
"set" of universal machine's ignorance, and physics is the common
>>sharable border of that ignorance, and it has been confirmed
>>sharable border has been shown to obey to quantum
>>I get recently new result: one confirm that with comp the
first person can hardly know
>>or even just believe in comp; the
other (related to an error in my thesis I talked
>>about in some
previous post) is the apparition of a "new" quantum logic (I did
>>not command it!) and even (I must verify) an infinity of quantum
>>the singular first person and the totally sharable
>>This could go along with your old theory
that there could be a continuum of
the 1 and 3 person, and that would confirms that you
gifted as an "introspecter" (do you remember? I thought you were silly).
>>But then it looks you don't like any more the 3-person discourse,
The adoption of the first person as a "frame of reference" (my
terminology) implies the ultimate relativization. In other words, the logical
system governing the mental processes of the observer becomes part of the
"frame of reference> However, we all know that human beings do not think
according to formal systems. Human systems are full of inconsistencies,
errors, etc... and very often their beliefs about the world is just wrong.
Very often they even make arithmetic errors such as 8x7 = 65.
So if we
assume a relative formulation, here is the dilemma:
1) if we adopt a
formal system such as the one(s) your have talked about we assign an absolute
quality to the observer which violates our premise of relative
2) If we adopt a non-formal human logical system," we are left
with an extremely complicated task of reconciling the observations obtained by
several observers who in my terminology "share the same frame of reference"
One of the question that arise is how fundamental should be the
concept of "frame of reference" or of the mechanism/logic that underlies our
1) Is it governed at the atomic level by physical laws down to
resolution of Planck's constant? The notion of observer is defined here with a
Planck resolution. If we share the same physical laws then we can say
that we share the same frame of reference. This option avoids the
inconsistencies of the "human logical systems" but throws out of the window
the relativistic formulation. In addition this approach provides a neat
justification for the equivalence of the sets describing the physical world
and the mental world.
2) Is it governed at the neurological or even at the
psychological level? The notion of observer here has a very coarse resolution
compared to the first option. This approach keeps the relative formulation but
becomes a quagmire because of its lack of formalism. How can the notion of
"objective reality" be defined? In fact, is there such a thing as a true
psychological objective reality? However, the fact that a "psychological
objective reality" is an oxymoron (contradiction in terms) does not invalidate
the definition of the observer at the psychological level. Au