I debated not bothering to answer this as it is a childish rebuke and contains little rational thought.
How can you suppose an object is a person without supposing you know something about its asymmetries? The word "person" supposes a whole slew of information. In this case you are apparently supposing a lack of ignorance. Secondly, you clearly have no concept of my use of "unknowable" data. If you read what I said, you certainly didn't pay any attention to it or think about it at all.
Your concepts of symmetry are just not on a level one would expect from a Ph.D. in physics.
Furthermore, I do not define reality as a perception! I define reality as a set of numbers and hold that there exists no communicable concept of anything which cannot be transformed into a set of numbers.
And I find it rather laughable that you would go so far as to say that reality is not what you perceive it to be!
"But the objects of the world are not symmetrical, and our ignorance of them does not make them symmetrical."
While you are making statements of unsupported belief, are those angels dancing on the head of a pin symmetric or not?
By the way, what I present is not a theory. It is nothing more than a logical analysis of the problem facing the scientist. I present no theory of perception; I hold it as an unexaminable phenomena.
Spherical symmetry and mirror symmetry and exchange symmetry are all embedded in my presentation. Exchange symmetry is explicitly included when I say that every data element is equivalent to any other and you of all people should recognize the other symmetries in my fundamental equation.
I simply do not have the time to teach you physics!
Have fun -- Dick