[time 766] Re: [time 765] Re: [time 763] Noumenon and Phenomenon, Question for Matti


Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:10:40 +0300 (EET DST)


On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 9/14/99 3:09:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> stephenk1@home.com writes:
>
> > Subj: [time 763] Re: [time 762] Noumenon and Phenomenon
> > Date: 9/14/99 3:09:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> > From: stephenk1@home.com (Stephen P. King)
> > Sender: owner-time@kitada.com
> > To: WDEshleman@aol.com, time@kitada.com
> >
> > Dear Bill,
> >
> > WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Time group,
> > >
> > > Hitoshi has allowed his orthogonalisation of QM and GR
> > > to be called the noumenon of his theory of LSs.
> > >
> > > My approach to cosmology is to make inertia and gravity
> > > orthogonal (independent) and I accept this orthogonalisation
> > > as the noumenon of my cosmology.
> > >
> > > Could it be a consistent if not general rule that the noumenon
> > > is an orthogonalisation of phenomenon?
> >
> > By noumenon do you mean the class of all "observers", in that the
> > noemena (singular case) are "what is doing the observing" and,
> > similarly, do you mean phenomenon to be the class of all "observations"?
> > http://www.browncat.demon.co.uk/hoi/dictionary/concepts/n/Noumenon.html
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> Stephen, et al.,
>
> The definitions at ideas & concepts are too good not to print.
>
> Noumenon:
> Word used by Immanuel Kant to denote the 'thing-in-itself' [or, as noumena,
> 'things-in-themselves'] which he distinguishes from phenomenon or
> 'appearance'. The world as we experience it, says Kant, is the world of
> 'appearances', we can never get to the 'things-in-themselves' or the world
> 'in itself'. What Kant means by this deeply puzzling statement is actually
> quite simple. He believes that when we experience the world we do so using
> perceptual apparatus which is 'tuned' in particular ways. It - and it's
> probably easiest to think of it, for the moment, as our mind - comes, as it
> were, pre-set with certain in-built concepts which condition the way that we
> experience the world. Space and time are two such in-built concepts. So we
> experience a spatial and temporal world, we experience things in space and
> time. But, because these in-built concepts are so powerful we cannot but
> experience things through perceptual apparatus that has been conditioned by
> them and that means we cannot ever get through 'direct', as it were, to the
> things-in-themselves, the noumena. We have to make do with the appearances,
> the phenomena.
>
> Phenomenon:
> Word used by Immanuel Kant to denote 'appearance', which he distinguishes
> from the 'thing-in-itself', the noumenon (or plural noumena). The world as we
> experience it, says Kant, is the world of 'appearances' (phenomena). We can
> never get to the 'things-in-themselves' or the world 'in itself'. What Kant
> means by this deeply puzzling statement is actually quite simple. He believes
> that when we experience the world we do so using perceptual apparatus which
> is 'tuned' in particular ways. It - and it's probably easiest to think of it,
> for the moment, as our mind - comes, as it were, pre-set with certain
> in-built concepts which condition the way that we experience the world. Space
> and time are two such in-built concepts. So we experience a spatial and
> temporal world, we experience things in space and time. Because these
> in-built concepts are so powerful we cannot but experience things through a
> perceptual apparatus that has been conditioned by them and that means we
> cannot ever get through directly to the things-in-themselves, the noumena. We
> have to make do with the appearances, the phenomena.
>
> Furthermore, I believe that Matti's TGD theory has a noumenon
> in the intersection (possibly orthogonalization) of a 4-surface
> in an 8-space. When he deflects the intersection and finds
> an infinite number of Fourier coefficients for the deflection he
> then concludes that the deflection results in the generation of an
> infinite number of dimensions. I assume that Matti's phenomenon
> is then the deflection residing in its infinite dimension space.
> Then, somehow, Matti also concludes that there is an additional
> phenomenon, the consciousness phenomenon. Matti treates both
> of these phenomena as objects. I suggest that consciousness is
> more likely to reside in the noumenon, and the noumenon must
> be treated as subject. Matti, if I got it wrong, please correct it.

If noumena and phenomena are defined in the sense as
you define them, noumena correspond in TGD to quantum histories/objective
realities. Phenomena correspond to subjective experiences associated with
quantum jumps and their sequences giving rise to selves. Phenomenon is
always determined by initial and final quantum histories (initial and
final noumena). The space of phenomena can be parametrized by allowed
pairs of noumena. Physics (apart from quantum jump) describes
noumena.

One could also regard imbedding space (not dynamical) and
configuration space of 3-surfaces as noumena. They are 'dings an sich'.

Best,
MP



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