Noumena, Phenomena, and examples
January 12th 2007 14:17
Hi all,
hehe, still on physics (there is plenty of things to talk about before we go to ethics). As i said in last post, in this one i'll be focusing on the phenoumena-phenoumena relation, and in the end a little reflection on causality, since is a subject that we have to go through.
I'll be using from now on the terminology used by Kant to define his noumena and phenomena relation. If you have any doubts about it, just google this and you'll find out everything you need to get the idea. I give you an example of the thing in these next paraghraphs.
As said in other posts, every time a fact in noumena is interpreted (transported from the "real" to the base of a being), we have an inevitable loose of information, and misinterpration. Mathematically speaking, what we have is that the vector in the real base is infinite dimension, and the base of the being is not. So it is impossible to him to get all the information he has access to, and so the loose of information.
An example on this: imagine you've just seen a car accident. In noumena (reality), this fact is represented by an infinte quantity of information (the state of the car, the state and experience of the driver, the physical carachtericstics of the road, etc.). Just to get the complete visual information of the fact is already tuff, and is obviouly not enought to explain it. Here it is the loose of information, in the passage from noumena to your mind (phenomena).
Still, we did not finished with the interpretation of the fact. The base of the being that interprets the vector (the fact) is not orthogonal, it means, there are some components of the vector that are projected more (or less) than they should in some components of the new basis, and thus this transform is irreversible. The vector is transformed in something its not. The base ofthe being cannot distinguich perfectly between all the data that it interprets.
In the same example, if the accident was caused by a young driver, you may think directly that it is related to his inexperience. These things are not obligatory true, but in your life these things come togheter normally, so you have "built your base" (adapted your interpretation) in a way that these things come togheter. For maths lovers, you can see that as the adaptaviness of a neural network.
Ok, so from this we conclude what Nietzche concluded himself, that there are no such thing as the "can't you see? the facts are there!". No one has the real access to the facts, so in away the old "big moustache" guy is right.
Can you Imagine so the relation in phenomena-phenoma interpretation? To simplify the phrase: can you imagine how the facts can be unintentionally distorced when someone is telling other one a story? In our example ofthe car accident, you can easily start in a problem with the tires and end up with a "drunk kid driving wildly" ...i'll not get to conclusions of this way of reasoning in this post, but later we'll get back to this to take our conclusions. Please don't accelerate them (as people often did to Nietzche's though, putting words in his mouth).
I think it's quite a lot of information for this post, so i'll leave causality talk for the next one, if you're still there....i'll try also to get to the relation between beings, and maybe finish this first trip on (meta)physics to go to ethics.
Cheers, Uula
hehe, still on physics (there is plenty of things to talk about before we go to ethics). As i said in last post, in this one i'll be focusing on the phenoumena-phenoumena relation, and in the end a little reflection on causality, since is a subject that we have to go through.
I'll be using from now on the terminology used by Kant to define his noumena and phenomena relation. If you have any doubts about it, just google this and you'll find out everything you need to get the idea. I give you an example of the thing in these next paraghraphs.
As said in other posts, every time a fact in noumena is interpreted (transported from the "real" to the base of a being), we have an inevitable loose of information, and misinterpration. Mathematically speaking, what we have is that the vector in the real base is infinite dimension, and the base of the being is not. So it is impossible to him to get all the information he has access to, and so the loose of information.
An example on this: imagine you've just seen a car accident. In noumena (reality), this fact is represented by an infinte quantity of information (the state of the car, the state and experience of the driver, the physical carachtericstics of the road, etc.). Just to get the complete visual information of the fact is already tuff, and is obviouly not enought to explain it. Here it is the loose of information, in the passage from noumena to your mind (phenomena).
Still, we did not finished with the interpretation of the fact. The base of the being that interprets the vector (the fact) is not orthogonal, it means, there are some components of the vector that are projected more (or less) than they should in some components of the new basis, and thus this transform is irreversible. The vector is transformed in something its not. The base ofthe being cannot distinguich perfectly between all the data that it interprets.
In the same example, if the accident was caused by a young driver, you may think directly that it is related to his inexperience. These things are not obligatory true, but in your life these things come togheter normally, so you have "built your base" (adapted your interpretation) in a way that these things come togheter. For maths lovers, you can see that as the adaptaviness of a neural network.
Ok, so from this we conclude what Nietzche concluded himself, that there are no such thing as the "can't you see? the facts are there!". No one has the real access to the facts, so in away the old "big moustache" guy is right.
Can you Imagine so the relation in phenomena-phenoma interpretation? To simplify the phrase: can you imagine how the facts can be unintentionally distorced when someone is telling other one a story? In our example ofthe car accident, you can easily start in a problem with the tires and end up with a "drunk kid driving wildly" ...i'll not get to conclusions of this way of reasoning in this post, but later we'll get back to this to take our conclusions. Please don't accelerate them (as people often did to Nietzche's though, putting words in his mouth).
I think it's quite a lot of information for this post, so i'll leave causality talk for the next one, if you're still there....i'll try also to get to the relation between beings, and maybe finish this first trip on (meta)physics to go to ethics.
Cheers, Uula
| 47 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
