Overall, this is a coherent metaframework.
I'd like to point out a technicality in one of your examples, and a
general metaquestion:
=====
> Pi is also part of subjective reality. The value of pi itself is
> subjective. Its equivalent numerical expression (3.14etc.) is already a
> subjective interpretation to subjective reality.
The numerical expression is automatically on the verge of subjective,
since it requires a choice of base for notation. [It won't look very
similar in base 20, or hexadecimal.]
=====
With the advent of primitive virtual reality systems, it is now feasible
[in the amazingly rich U.S., in the right places] to test a building's
design by virtually walking through it before a single move is made to
lay the foundation. This has caught design errors.
I considered the formal distinction between an Objective Reality and a
Virtual Reality about two years ago. I could not think of a test that
will ID Objective Reality positively if it succeeds. [Someone once
wanted to banish Descartes' Fallacy (sic). How does what I'm doing
relate to the above, and is there a key distinction that allows avoidance?]
Question: is Virtual Reality formally distinguishable from Subjective
Reality?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////