>>13215470You are a thing-in-itself, but Kant means other things in themselves. Those we don't have access to because what we perceive to make up us (our mind) is quality completely divorced from physical considerations. We might have certain points of contact between these two, but these confer exactly this, a zero-dimensional singularity of ontological correspondence, which is information to be sure, but provides nothing beyond a zero-dimensional data point of it. Higher-dimensional (i.e. information that covers more orthogonal attributes than an unitary one, not spatial dimensions) are completely inaccessible.
It's like wanting to make numbers inhabit the same realm as shapes. They are inherently just not of the same quality.
