[Mike Todd]

Hi Don,<div>
</div><div>I’ll get back to you tomorrow with what I hope will appear a well-considered response, but for now let me bullet-point where I’ll be coming from and where I’ll be going.</div><div>
</div><div>

• Fundamental reality or the ground is unquantifiable quality. Quantification is made possible by the existence of regularities, and regularities are, in every sense, wholly unmanifested in the ground as I have defined it.
• I believe that regularities exist in noumenal reality as I have defined it, and that these regularities, in some ineffable way, prefigure and substantiate those of phenomenal reality, but as they remain unobservable (to us), they also remain unquantifiable (by us), and I cannot conceive – or perhaps that should be perceive – any taxonomy of possible attributes.
• No one, I hope, would deny that regularities exist in phenomenal reality, and since these are by definition observable, they are also quantifiable, and the attributes made available to us for quantification are those inherent to the spatiotemporal framework of our human perceptual system. I borrow from Donald Hoffman here in positing that phenomenal reality, since its nature is defined by the (perceptual) framework within which it manifests, may be species-specific. Nagel may have been onto something when he asked, What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

</div><div>I also hope to say something worthwhile about philosophical phenomenology and its relationship to phenomenal and physical reality, the latter of which I consider a subset of the former. And, of course, I’ll make reference to the nature of quantity and quality as aspects of phenomenal reality, and in particular, to their differences and similarities.</div>