Le 07-août-05, à 21:24, John M a écrit :

Dear Bruno, you (and as I guess: others, too) use the
subject phrase. Does it make sense?

What do you mean by "use the subject phrase"?




Reality is supposed to be something independent from
our personal manipulations


Srtictly speaking I do not agree. Some satellites of Earth are human made, and local "physical reality" can depends, at least locally, on us. Now, with comp, I am saying something bigger than that, which is that the whole of physical reality is an (atemporal) construction made by "us". Not "us" the human, but "us" the Lobian Machines .... Absolute non relative reality is giving by number theory and is supposed to be independent of what Lobian machines proves ciorrectly (or incorrectly) about it.



 (=1st person
interpretation) and so it has got to be objective,
untouched by our experience and emotions. Eo ipso it
is not subjective.


Why? I don't see why subjective and objective cannot have an objective overlap, and a subjective overlap too.





Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its
own distortions it is "subjective", not objective
anymore.
So it looks like "subjective reality" is an oxymoron.


I'm afraid you do some category error. "subjectivity" is not anything you want to be true. The simplest example is "Mister X suffered from headache (that day)". It could be a subjective reality, for Mister X, independently of our current ability to verify that fact. More generally, in the context of some hypothesis and definitions, the "subjective reality" can obey to objective (relatively provable in that theory) relations.





I understand if you (all) use the phrase as the
'imagined' and 'acceptable' version of something we
CAN handle in our feeble minds. I would not call THAT
a 'reality'.


In that case, assuming the comp hyp, reality *is* number theory. Given that any physical truth must emerged from Lobian machine dreams and observer-moments (to be short). I prefer to include in "reality" all the possible internal views. If only for not running the risk of eliminating persons and universes (world views) from reality.


Bruno



 It seems to be a 'virtuality' as
generated (even if only in modifications if you
insist) WITHIN our mind, subject to our personal
mental structure and content.

I am not ashamed to say: I dunno, but it seems to
me...
in wich case I separated 'it' from any 'reality'.

John M
(the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion)


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


Reply via email to