WDEshleman@aol.com
Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:13:38 EDT
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.
Stephen, have you got a noumenon?
Sincerely,
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:41 JST