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.
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
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
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
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.
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
in wich case I separated 'it' from any 'reality'.
(the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion)