RE: virus: TT

Jason McVean (
Mon, 4 Nov 96 16:24:37 MST

David McFadzean wrote:
> I agree that subjective reality is a subset of true (or objective) reality,

Isn't subjective reality a different, possibly partially
overlapping set of objective reality?

> but for a different reason. An infinite number of senses wouldn't help because
> in each case what you perceive is an interaction with objective reality, not
> objective reality in and of itself.

If objective reality always gives off photons in the same way,
and always has the same magnetic field, and always exhibits the
same time dependent behaviour, no matter what the observer is, is
there really any point in distinguishing between objective
reality and the properties it has?

Our perception on these properties may be subjective but we can
use devices or comparitive methods or whatever to remove the
subjective element.

> So no matter how many senses you add to
> your repertoire, the reality you perceive would still be subjective.

What about something like the relative heights of Danny Devito
and Kevin Costner? For something such as this where everyone who
is qualified to judge (i.e., everyone who has seen both of them
side by side) would give the same judgement, is it still a
subjective matter?


Dept. of Physics and Astronomy University of Calgary

"And it would have worked if it weren't for those meddling kids."