/lit/ - Literature

For the time of Kant, a priori time was interesting and may have been true. With the hindsight of relativity and space time, it's just an intellectual relic.

> This makes it stupid to ask questions like these to begin with.

Which questions do you mean?

Kant's question or Questions about time?

>>1538286
The ones about time, which are major questions regarding religion

questioners gonna question

>>1538294
Modern philosophers kan't into Physics.

That's what I believe too. Time is a measurement that without it, we couldn't understand the universe.

I think I read something like this in Valis, about time not existing. I think it was Valis anyway . . . an interesting question anyway, I remember being pretty confused thinking about it.

I am going to say this once and then never:

1) I am not a great authority on anything.

2) Modern Physics is WAY more difficult and intricate and counter-intuitive than any of non-master's physics students can imagine.

3) Study of science is basically Philosophy of causes, which itself is true Philosophy.

4) Modern philosophers, unless they are physicists, use language as a tool of truth-finding and hence they are impotent against advancing technology and understanding of science by general public.

5)Finally, what IS is. We simply perceive it. This cannot be proven. But is an essential assumption behind ANY inquiry,

>>1538385
bumping for minor justice.

bamph

>>1538385
aren't you studying for like a PhD in Food Science or something?

>>1538284
I don't think you understand relativity, Anonymous

>>1538332

This is the first post I can remember actually laughing at in a long time.

>>1538385

Good luck trying to argue this point with hipsters aka 4chan lit.

>>1538537
I guess butthurt is serious pain. So bad attempt at humour?

No. Its applied quantum mechanics just to cause a little more hurt.

>>1538560
>I don't think you understand relativity, Anonymous
That's a cool conjecture, but unfounded. Since you seem to be a little slow: Kant's argument of a priori time requires that they are purely mental constructions, but in fact relativity shows that spacetime has a structure in reality.

Are you still having trouble understanding?

>>1538597
spacetime is not actually time you dumbshit

guess where did we get relativity oh wait

>>1538614
Galileo

>>1538612

I'm having a little trouble distinguishing whether this is a troll or not. Hmm...

>>1538612
I'm getting the impression you don't understand what you're talking about, so I'll be super nice and explain you some basics:

Spacetime is a four dimensional object consisting of space and time, which is deformed by acceleration and gravitational fields (or by changes in energy, if you prefer). Deformations in spacetime mean changes in both space and time (so universal standard lengths become meaningless, whether they be in metres or seconds). This was one of the problems with general relativity, since to conceive it you have to eschew a coordinate system.

>>1538630
and that has nothing to do with kant

>>1538630
Slight correction: It existed previously as Minkowski 4 vector space.

>>1538636
It clearly shows that time has a structure independent of our own minds. Therefore, Kant's argument of a priori time, which relies on time having no basis in reality, only in human perception, is wrong.

>>1538640
time as we perceive it being deformed by gravitational fields has nothing to do with kant

>Kant's argument of a priori time requires that they are purely mental constructions

also, misleading

>>1538637
Special relativity existed in Minkowski space, for sure. But you don't get gravitational distortion of space time in Minkowski space, which is what I'm getting at. It's that mass/energy affects spacetime and spacetime affects mass/energy relationship that's needed as far as I can see.

>>1538649
Of it is it is only permissible if it were in accord with contemporary knowledge.

>>1538660
wtf?

I meant:

it is only permissible if it were in accord with contemporary knowledge.

>>1538644
That's the point, time then has its own structure independent of our perceptions.

>>1538668
/thread

>>1538679
nope. the dude still doesn't understand kant

>>1538630
>Spacetime is a four dimensional object consisting of space and time
Every "object" consists at least in some part of space and time, otherwise we would not be capable of perceiving it. To say of an object that it is solely space and time (spacetime) is to say that it is solely a structure of the human mind.

>>1538703
anyway, even if there was "space" and "time" sitting around outside the structures of our mind in transcendental reality we would never know

>>1538703

What do you expect after this?

>>1538708

>>1538697
The opposing argument is alternately spamming either:
Doesn't understand general relativity, or
Doesn't understand Kant

So, last explanation, with the help of some copy pasta:
>Next, in the 'Transcendental Exposition', Kant argues that we must have an a priori intuition of space because 'geometry is a science which determines the properties of space synthetically and yet a priori' (B 40). That is, the propositions of geometry describe objects in space, go beyond the mere concepts of any of the objects involved - thus geometric theorems cannot be proved without actually constructing the figures - and yet are known a priori. (Kant offers an analogous but less plausible argument about time, where the propositions he adduces seem analytic (B 48 ).) Both our a priori knowledge about space and time in general and our synthetic a priori knowledge of geometrical propositions in particular can be explained only by supposing that space and time are of subjective origin, and thus knowable independently of the experience of particular objects.

We have learnt through new knowledge that space and time are not how we synthesize them, and that they have some objective structure (therefore not of subjective origin). Thus, Kant's argument is not valid.

>>1538722
>implying I was saying something other than that arguing with me would be retarded because I am always right

>>1538734

I am always right.

You are wrong.

>>1538720
>>1538703
You are in way over your head.

>>1538734

You're French aren't you?

>>1538737

If he's wrong he'll just play it off as if he were trolling.
Just let him rot.

>>1538737
if that means he's completely submerged in the sea of correctness then yes

>>1538730
you don't understand knowledge either

>>1538748
>deep&edgy
>posting as anonymous
>to make it look like he has the support of objective viewers

Definitely French.

>>1538753
Then enlighten me.

>>1538730
>Both our a priori knowledge about space and time in general and our synthetic a priori knowledge of geometrical propositions in particular can be explained only by supposing that space and time are of subjective origin, and thus knowable independently of the experience of particular objects.

This is basically the only part of your greentext which states that kant is wrong, and it doesn't even have present an argument for these claims

>>1538762
inb4 more greentext waffle and a customary "SO CLEARY I'm RIGHT"

>>1538769
greentext waffle from the routledge encyclopedia of philosophy no less, jesus

>>1538762
The arguments have already been presented, in pretty simple language too. If you want to understand them more fully, you'd have to have a basic understanding of general relativity, and 4chan is not the place for that.

>>1538784

You're not to the posting statues stage yet? Clearly, you're mad that a couple people in this thread know more than you. Can you just start posting statues already?

>>1538784
It's good enough for /lit/. You want to verify it, trawl through Critique of Pure Reason. It's a good book, I recommend it, if dense.

>>1538786
I already showed why all this spacetime crap is a load of baloney, and in either case that we would never know whether space and time were actually present in transcendental reality. I already understand everything pefectly well.

>>1538792
You are the shittiest namefag.

>>1538792

He'll post vampires or some shit, along with short sentence fragments that neither respond nor address any part of an argument.

He's a simple, predictable man.

Time is change; the measurement of time is that which records and contextualizes any specific order of that change.

Kant's only good work is on Ethics.

>>1538804
>I already showed why all this spacetime crap is a load of baloney, and in either case that we would never know whether space and time were actually present in transcendental reality. I already understand everything pefectly well.
You showed an inability to understand the term "object" and it's relationship to what was meant by spacetime, and hoped to undermine it by bludgeoning it with a poor understanding of deconstruction.

Derrida does not make up for understanding, and is not someone to hide your ignorance behind.

>>1538804

No, you're getting defensive because I have a clear understanding of how you work.

Lose argument?->Post statues!

>>1538827

seconded.

>>1538814
This sounds about right.

>>1538814
>>1538833
It's perfectly correct. In general relativity, however, it becomes clear that time has an existence independent of us when rates of change change depending on the conditions of spacetime.

>>1538826
That's not an argument, nothing I've said has anything to do with deconstruction.

All you've done in this thread is say that there's an object out there that is spacetime, that is simply space and time. All this is to do is to deny in the first place what Kant is saying, or assume what has to be proven.

I've yet to see anyone actually argue for their points in this thread instead of simply saying, "well, you just don't understand X"

>>1538850
>In general relativity, however, it becomes clear
Again, this is not an argument, this is all you've been saying in this thread

>>1538850
Well maybe. But I can't bring myself to believe in general relativity.

>I've yet to see anyone actually argue for their points in this thread instead of simply saying, "well, you just don't understand X"

Even if it were otherwise you would not be open to discussion anyway by your own admission. There is only one word for that in my dictionary. Hipster.

>>1538855
The object of spacetime is not an object "out there". You're stuck to some assumption of what you think an object should be.

Kant imagines that space and time are like a stage, and only exist because we say that they do. He does not suppose that space and time can have an effect on the things on the stage. To him, space and time are the same as a coordinate system, they're a kind of bookkeeper to aid our comprehension. However, space and time do affect the things, and they also affect space and time. And these distortions can be measured and seen, and our independent of our own perceptions/synthesis.

This is about as spoonfed as it can get. If you want any more, you'll have to study it yourself.

>>1538863
I don't blame you, it asks a lot more questions than it answers, especially when you consider QM alongside it.

>>1538889
>Kant imagines that space and time are like a stage, and only exist because we say that they do.
Actually no: he pretends that space and time exist because it is impossible to think they do not.

>>1538630

>Spacetime is a four dimensional object consisting of space and time
Space (and Time) is "the subjective condition of sensibility, under which alone outer intuition is possible for us", anyway space and time are basically a priori intuitions
So far we've got: Spacetime is a four dimensional object consisting of (the subjective conditions of sensibility). But here's the thing, Kant understands objects as "presented in intuition, and they are thought using concepts", but the object of spacetime as you've presented it has no conceptual aspect, because all the properties of it presented are in fact intuitions, and an object is presented in intuition and thought of in concepts

"thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind"

etc etc>>1538889

>>1538904
Uh:
>Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind's nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.

To be fair, you are right that the stage thing is not true, but was true enough for my laziness and the complexity of what Kant actually argues in the Critique of Pure Reason (the above quote is from an earlier work, but this view is seen in COPR). You are also wrong on that score, though.

>>1538917
tl;dr spacetime is not an object (in the kantian framework) because it composed solely of intuitions

>>1538917
I agree with this post. wtf?

>>1538917
Conflating "space and time" and "spacetime". Kant has no knowledge of anything like spacetime.

>>1538934
Fine. I am bugged enough of this voluntarily perpetuated tomfoolery.

D&E:

What's the primary basis of any argument?

>>1538941
I've just explained why spacetime is not an object. I haven't conflated them, I've simply worked with the definition of spacetime as I've been given.

>>1538703
>>1538917

mfw when D&E strikes again!

>>1538955
The definition you have been given has spacetime as a 4 dimensional object. By this definition, spacetime is an object.

>>1538969
>The definition you have been given has spacetime as a 4 dimensional object

>Spacetime is a four dimensional object consisting of space and time
That's not a definition, that's a claim (although really all definitions could be construed as claims). It also begs the question.

>>1538982
It's not a claim, it is a definition. Learn the difference.

This thread proves, if need be, that physicists have no hindsight whatsoever when it comes to the tools they use to make sense of the world. You people are out of your depth.

>>1538949
>What's the primary basis of any argument?
Primary is a slippery word Jim, you're going to have to tell me what you mean by primary.

>>1538985
K bro, I think it is about time I have a well-deserved lol at your expense.

LOL

>>1538989
Considering I haven't seen a valid comment about Kant or General relativity from anyone other than "physicists", I must disagree.

First:

For the question in hand we don't have to go into relativity.

Second:

Kant's notion of Objects is something that is intuitive available for consideration.

Thirdly:

Time and space are BOTH intuitive quantities. You perceive time (classically) as the direction of breaking of glass; i.e. a whole glass to a broken one. It tells us which direction time goes.

Also, Space is very much intuitive. Its equivalent to saying how large a balloon is.

So D&E:

Either you can't into classical physics or you were supplied wrong definitions.

Classically time is VERY much an object and an absolute if Kant could understand contemporary ideas proposed by Newton (which he couldn't as he wan't smart enough).

>>1538995
Go4it.

>>1538995
>trying too hard

I love penises up my ass.So i practice with cucumbers and bananas

sciducks are particularly vulnerable to d&e's style of trolling

>>1539002
>if Kant could understand contemporary ideas proposed by Newton
Ooh, I would be very careful about arguing that. Kant takes into consideration both Leibniz's and Newton's ideas of space and time in COPR. Kant certainly did understand Newton's ideas, and questioned this idea of absolute position.

>>1539002
That post was so fucking moronic, infantile and clueless I don't even know where to begin. Seriously dude, is English not your native language or something? I'm not even trolling here. Anyway, I think now I'm just going to refer to you are Bizarro Truman because it is increasingly clear to me that neither you nor him have the slightest clue what you are talking about; Truman has the good skill of being able to SEEM, at least, as though he can convey a point. You cannot.

>>1539030
I like explaining this stuff. I'm not too bothered if the other person won't/can't understand it.

>>1539034
Don't know if you've noticed, duder, but not having any idea what he's talking about and saying it in a really confusing / weird way is kind of JamesBonds' schtick. He falls into that category of people you see on 4chan sometimes of "people who actually seem fucking crazy".

>>1539034
5 star post brah, you're such a great contributor

Of course I'm being sarcastic and that post was gay.

this thread is why we can't have nice things

>>1539033
Oh really? So did De constructionists
who claimed to understand quantum field theory.

>>1539034
>moronic, infantile etc

Its for your level of knowledge Philoboy. You would know an definite integral if it were forced up your throat. And incidently any physicist would tell you that I am thoroughly ACCURATE. Something that modern philosophers can't seem do now a days.

> English
Deal with it. Its my ideas you want and not my grammar at this juncture. I am simply typing fast without double checking it.

>>1539053
It's not too bad. Not a lot of raging, apart from from the usual suspects. A bit of the ignorant calling others ignorant, but also good explanations here and there.

Considering this is a Kant thread, the amount of stupidity is pretty low.

>>1539056
Whatever you raving lunatic, good god

>>1539065
D&E be gracious enough to agree that you have no authority over Physics. You are a poor loser. I used the definition YOU supplied me of objects as per Kant. I used it demonstrate that both space and time are objects.

Your reply was:
Hurr durr idiot moron etc.

Well.

What does that tell us of your supposed brilliance, o best tripfag of /lit/?

>>1539073
This really has virtually nothing to do with physics.
>I used the definition YOU supplied me of objects as per Kant.

>here's the thing, Kant understands objects as "presented in intuition, and they are thought using concepts

>Time and space are BOTH intuitive quantities
First you deny the basic premise, and then you provide a bunch of flimsy non-coherent, anecdotal and subjective examples

I almost burst into tears over the sheer idiocy of it

>>1539056
Deconstructionists are a little different to Kant. Bear in mind that there were massive arguments between both the Leibniz and Newton schools at the time, so he could easily get criticism of each one. They're also somewhat more intuitive than quantum field theory.

>>1539090
>really has virtually
Which is it, really or virtually?

Niggas need to stop thinking that our models of the universe are the universe itself.

shhhhhiiiiiiiiiit

>>1539098
lol, kiss my ass you equivocating scumbag. yawn I'm off to bed.

>>1539111

You always say that when you're losing an argument and it's still early. And then you keep posting, sadly.

>>1539112
That's the thing: it is clear there is something else there. Easy to fall into the trap of "how we want to believe the universe is, is how the universe is" both with and without models.

why hasn't this thread 404d yet

>>1539129
Because it Kant.

>>1539094
Have you tried reading a text of classical mechanics? It requires excellent knowledge of Calculus, linear algebra and numerical methods. You don't have to trust me. Check out any book from the shelf on the topic. Its difficult even for Physicists today to explain a concept as fundamental as principle of least (stationary) action.

Kant, at any point of time could have only interpreted the abstract part of the argument but never the actual mathematical rigour in it. This rigour was later used crucially by Einstein, Einstein's mentor Poincare to develop relativity. It was the FORMULATION of this mathematics that is source of modern ideas of Physics (Noether's theorem, read it). Even today we don't clearly know why mathematics is such a good model for the universe. But it is. Without understanding the formulation of the theories Kant was only talking about what he could grasp from the description. So it would be a bit inadvertent to claim that he UNDERSTOOD Newton's ideas.

Please understand, that I do NOT in any way deny Kant's genius which was in Linguistics and its formulation. But to tell me that that he was an authority on hard physics would be only taken for laughs.

Now, the problem in this thread is a lack of understanding of Kants ontology. Dude was a (listen closely): Empirical realist / Transcendental Idealist.

Anonymous: "What does this mean?"
Me: "That there is a difference between the perception of the cosmos by the human mind, and the actual transcendental reality, sometimes reffered to as noumena."
Anonymous: "and so the fuck what?"
Me: "That means that even though scentist figure out that time and space are objects, it is still within a perception through human intuition. In other words, just as we can all agree that the earth revolves around the sun, we can also agree that time and space, or spacetime, is a real empirical object of our cosmos. This however, does not undermine Kants claim, that this is not necissarily the case for the transcendental reality, the noumena. In other words, let's just keep on acting like time and space, and general relativity is objectively true, because all empirical evidence say so, but let's not disregard the possibility that it is in fact not."

>>1539134

What? Kant didn't need to know the details of relativity, you blithering idiot. He was most often after a fundamental and simple principle of mechanism. See the left side of the pic.

>Kantian Linguistics

Oh god I lol'd

>>1539090
>flimsy non-coherent, anecdotal and subjective examples

D&E. See, I genuinely respect you. But do NOT test my limits. I am NOT supplying any flimsy argument:

TIme: In classical mechanics it is interpreted as the "Entropic arrow of time". Which means this: Order going to disorder leads to flow of time. The common most example of this is compressed gas: It expands spontaneously when its container is opened. This is irreversible and indicates that what WAS CANNOT BE UNDONE. When I say was.. you get the rest, right?

>I deny basic premises

Ok. I am listening. Which ones did I deny?

>>1539165
Which is good. I was only arguing on the part where it was claimed:

Time and space are NOT objects.
>>1538703

>>1539166
Very good. Thanks for proving me right. Now read my post again.

>causality:
Is an abstract concept. Something I would expect Kant to understand.

>Relativity:

Did you actually read that post?

>>1539127

Stop using your intuition and accept the nothingness.

>>1539134
Not familiar with Noether's theorem, so I will check it out, but I'm very well versed in classical mechanics being in my last year of a structural engineering masters. The rest I have some understanding of. I would disagree that you need to understand the maths to understand he nature of a theory, since maths is a reimagining of the problem in different, but parallel terms (and really kinda hides the nature of what is being done), and that we still need to ground ourselves in some kind of reality (like a thought experiment).

Personally, I think he understood the ideas of space very well, and was careful to point out his limitations (he didn't consider motion, or other empirical things in his arguments). Time not so much though.

>>1539131
best post so far itt. id on't even care who made it

>>1539208
Since you claim to be engineering still further claim that mathematics OBSCURES Physics, how the hell did you obtain the expression for Least action principle using Lagrangian?

Its the start of any CM book. Its pure abstract mathematics without a single Physical concept. Its basically variational principle from abstract calculus and the FUNDAMENTAL of the rest of the CM (Yes. Hamiltonians are mathematical constructs).

I think we are just talking cross-ways but of the same thing. Think about it.

>>1539186
Fuck you, I'm getting a priori up in this bitch.

To me my Jacobean brothers.

>>1539220
i dont' think that guy knows anything about lagrangian mechanics

>>1539220
It OBSCURES reality. Physics and maths are all well and good, but it's important that an engineer understands the reality of what is going on. Abstraction and theory can and does kill people, and that's no good.

There's about 250 to 300 years of theory based around graphical reasoning that allows engineers to intuit what's actually going on effectively. There's also differences between how we're taught maths and how physicists and mathematicians are taught it.

>>1539235
You learn it in the first year, it's basic basic engineering.

>>1539259
then how does that guy not know about noether's theorem???

>>1539265
I checked it out and I do, but bear in mind this was 4 years ago. It's only taught as a mathematical tool that you may need in the future, it hasn't come up since.

>>1539060
a lot of talking past each other, intentionally or not i can't tell but it means each side will just reinforce their idea that the other side is retarded without learning anything about the problem or about each other.

Objects with energy may move at different speeds but there is only the present.

>>1539300
i know all the problems

>>1539300
God damnit Georg, stay out of this!

space-time has nothing to do with space and time in the kantian sense.

>>1539340
discuss this further niggers. i am still interested.

>>1541534
Since he kant into causality. He shouldn't have used it to justify his ideas of 'freedom' and 'morality'.

This is a problem very much unique to almost all the contemporary Philosophers.

Albert Camus wrote that the only serious question is whether to kill yourself or not. Tom Robbins wrote that the only serious question is whether time has a beginning and an end. Camus clearly got up on the wrong side of bed, and Robbins must have forgotten to set the alarm...

>>1541568
I can't believe you juxtaposed Camus with Tim fucking Robbins. That's like placing a world class meal next to a heap of horseshit.

>>1541568
>mfw Camus could say this because someone invented books, words etc.

>mfw Tom could say it because someone could into physics to say that there was a concept of time.

>>1541534
As far as contemporary science can see, space and time are different to what Kant knew as space and time. The difference is such that it invalidates a priori knowledge of time.

>kant kant into x because I don't accept his basic axioms

wow guys good stuff

>>1541611
What's the alternative to this?

>I accept Kant's basic axioms, and agree with his arguments
The great non-critical outlook! How thrilling!

>>1541611
>his basic 'axioms' are false by his own definitions

Explain this.

already went through all this in my posts yesterday, not interested again today

>>1541654
You did not.

>>1541654
You're actually saying something different. You'd be the first, except for JamesBond to disagree with Kant's axioms.

>>1541656
>>1541662

do not care

>>1541668
Then stop posting.

>>1541671
do not care

Actually, I care, I'm sorry I'm such a dumb faggot.

do not care

>>1541676
Hi D&E.

Let me rephrase the question to get the satisfactory answers:

Kant uses ideas from Physical sciences to justify his theory.

He understands them wrong (is my claim).

Should be still accept his theories if my claim is true?

That is the question which is not an experiment.

Yesterday you claimed that I did not understand some of his basic ideas. I am still awaiting enlightenment.

>>1541699
*should be -> should we

It's okay, D+E. We all generally know that you can't help being a dumb faggot.

Do you think you could post less, though? We'd appreciate it.

>>1541699
>Kant uses ideas from Physical sciences to justify his theory.
Firstly, Kant rejects both Newton and Leibniz's conceptions of space and time. He has his own. Kant is attempting to provide a foundation for physical sciences with his own concepts, not drawing on them. He is trying to set things up so that, say, he is able to say of something like geometry that it consists of a priori truths and is not empirical. And so you get his descriptions of intuition and concepts and so on.

>>1541707
>not drawing on them
ignore

>>1541706
my posts have been the best posts in this thread

>>1541707
Hmm. But Should't his concepts stand the test of rigour? Or in this case is he exempt?

I am talking about this:
>>1539166

And further:

Why should one accept HIS formulations over Newtons? (I will skip Leibniz for historical reasons).

>>1541712
>But Should't his concepts stand the test of rigour? Or in this case is he exempt?
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

>>1541716
feel free to go with Newton if you like to think of space and time as things in themselves, a posteriori, and you like the idea that mathematics as an a priori science is impossible

not my cup of tea but there you go

>>1541730
I am surprised that it doesn't bother you that these things work. And that happens to the only criterion I can stand by.

>>1541707
He doesn't reject them. He uses a conception that takes both Leibniz's idea of the relation of objects being space and Newton's idea of an absolute position. You're seriously underestimating him and misreading him if you think he ignores/rejects both.

>>1541753
Kant says space and time are neither conceptual nor independent from the mind. This directly stands in opposition to both Leibniz's and Newton's definitions.

>>1541769
It stands in opposition to their claims, not to their definitions.

>>1541786
Cool. But for all intensive purposes as I've show he rejects Newton's and Leibniz's account of space and time and puts his own forth.

>>1541797
Just stating "he rejects them" doesn't do that. In this case you've misread Kant in the worst way.

>>1541807
blah blah blah, so far I'm the only one who has presented his views properly

>>1541829
BU you haven't answered my latest question.

>>1541829
If by properly you mean "Haven't bothered with the source material, just made up stuff based one hearsay". How insightful.

>>1538385
>what IS is
gb2 the Atlas Society, Howard Roark

>>1541853
>>1541841

lol

>>1538730
>>1538762
>>1538989
>>1539002

These posts sum up the gist and thrust of the arguments itt.

Anyways,

MARTIN HEIDEGGER ALL UP IN DIS BITCH YEE-AH
BOUIIIIII...

ok let me summarize this thread

sciducks, while possessing latest science, still has antiquated ideas about knowledge, as such they think kant's analysis of a priori time fails because it's empirically wrong, while failing to note that there is a difference between kant not having the latest empirical studies and kant making a wrong claim about the a priori status of time.

d&e is trolling as usual i dont really know what to do wiht him

>>1541886
>kant not having the latest empirical studies

Did you even bother to read or understand any of my posts?

>>1541886
>ctrl+f wrong
Only claim to Kant being wrong was D&E. Everyone else is looking at the argument, which is now shown to be incorrect.

So it would appear that your criticism is unfounded.

where they have failed is where i have suceeded where they lacked sight i saw the distance where they liked feet i enjoyed the leg when they said stop i said NO

>>1541886
don't bother onion, there are basically only two clowns left in the thread and they have been trying to troll me for 2 days after I showed everyone how well I'm familiar with Kant

>>1541912
There's been a few people, and you know Kant about as well as you know Schopenhauer.

ok you guys made me read through this thread holy shit
>>1541699
>>1541606

i have indeed underestimated sciducks somewhat. it is true that science has most convincingly shown that time and space are problems not approachable from a priori axioms. however, science only provides one side of this argument, namely that there are alternate, counterintuitive conceptions of space and time that works better. it is not the case that science is entirely neutral/objective with regard to conceptual schemes about reality. it is rather that it can assess competing intuitions against nature.

>>1541906

>>1541964

>>1541912
>trying
LOL

>>1541964
Nice conclusion of the dialectic.

Now, Heidegger up in this bitch.

>Cries off to bed

fuckers need to read henri bergson

>>1542056
well obviously he found that anons pedantry exhausting

>>1542083
I think he found his own pedantry exhausting. The guy tries to criticize shit that makes perfect sense for not making sense in his own special way.

Everything happens in the present moment.

being right isn't all that special guys i mean rly

>>1542106
wow thats like saying 1=1 hurr durr what is present tense action verb

>>1542108
dande:

Speshul kid with special needs.

>>1542106
Which present moment?

>>1542108
I wish I had said that

>>1542323
He's looking at some Cocoa Krispies.
Silly Deontologist. Cocoa Krispies are for Consequentialists.

he's right you know.

>>1538385

>2) Modern Physics is WAY more difficult and intricate and counter-intuitive than any of non-master's physics students can imagine.

100% agree. If only other philosophers could appreciate this.

>>1543522

From the Wikipedia articles I've read, I'd agree as well. Reading the article on the Big Bang while high was probably the most surreal experience I've ever had.

kant is an ass. he may have made advancements in many philisophical fields, but the guy made at least one miss for every hit he scored. im with the guys that named their dogs after him. "that's a bad kant! dont lick yourself around company!"

dear lord, why do you guys put up with Deep&Edgy?

>>1543722
I don't.

>>1543557

In that case, you're a pleb. Which is not to say I disagree that modern physics is extremely complex. In my opinion modern physics renders metaphysical inquiry obsolete. But the Big Bang? Really man? It's not exactly mind blowing.

>>1543748
>>1543748

>big bang theory
>not exactly mindblowing

nigga wat.

>time is a human measurement for length in how long things take
yes and its real for us excourse its not real in the sense of like humans but its like a law an idea

Schopenhauer, who continued a lot of Kants theories, basically said that time and space are objects. And therefore can only be apprehended by subjects as their own representation.

He states that what truly matters is not time itself but what it is represented by, which is "succession". The same goes for space, which is in turn apprehended by a sense of "position".

something that I must quote from the Brak show:

"Time is an abstract concept created by carbon based life-forms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese.

"posts"

>>1543883
I loved that show.
>>1543748
I don't know if it renders enquiry obsolete, but the Copenhagen interpretation of QM renders metaphysical criticism obsolete for sure.

this needs more discussion.

>>1545235
why

entropy

also, time is relative

see graviton
see quantum loop gravity

well, ask yourself -

how long is a piece of string?

i just kant get enough of this thread

Kant is a cunt.

If you honestly think time exists then you don't understand physics

>>1545677
>see graviton
>see quantum loop gravity
Fucking gravitons.

Jesus christ why the fuck is this thread still going?

>If you honestly think time exists then you don't understand physics

Sometimes 4chan surprises me with statements like this. 100% agree btw.

>>1549760
>>1549773

That being said, they still don't really know what happens below the Planck scale.

>>1549782
maybe below the planck scale doesn't exist. maybe space doesn't even exist!! woa!!!

>>1549790

Fucking Idealist anti-science faggot.
10/10 would rage again.

>>1549797
there is nothing in science that suggests that space necessarily exists. try again

>>1549798

>there is nothing in science that suggests that space necessarily exists.

6/10

>>1549798
What about aliens?

>>1549800
Holograms man. We could all be holograms.

>>1549803

or just an imprint on a film on the edges of the universe... or some such pseudo science shit I saw on the science channel.

>>1549808
?
Holographic universe comes out of entropy of a blackhole. I don't think you understand what hologram means in this instance.

>>1549800
there are even things in science to suggest that space might not exist. e.g. bell's theorem

>>1549815
That states there are no local hidden variables, not that there is no space.

>>1549820
i never said it did. pay attention to the qualifiers

>>1549815

9/10 (and only because I had to double check).

>>1549822
Nor does it suggest

>>1549820

we are still a singularity. we have not yet been banged. we are vishnu's thought experiment.

Wrap your head around that, there's some real science for your ass.

>>1549798
/sci/ here.
Space is a dimension. The fact that you have figure shows that it exists.

>>1549798

>>1549828
>cannot differentiate between construction and reality
You'll go far.

>>1549826
>we have not yet been banged.
I definitely banged your mom's singularity last night. Your argument is invalid.

>>1549828
*to all appearances I have figure

>>1549834
Honey, you lost your figure after having the triplets.

>we are vishnu's thought experiment.

Curry munching idealist faggot.

>mfw

I shit you not /sci/bros people actually believe this shit.

New age pseudo-babble with a hint of high school level quantum theory.

These new age faggots should be pursued with as much vigour and rage as christfags.

>>1549798
well put, the existence of space as a physical dimension is a contingent truth.

>>1549844
>>1549844

Everything said in science is contingent. However, that simply does not mean that everything said in science is wrong.

>>1549844
Not when it curves. And not for Maxwell's equations.

>>1549852

*or that entities posited by scientists don't exist

>>1549852
True, however I don't think anyone suggested science was "wrong", just not necessarily true. It may be true, it may be false, thus contingent.

>>1549857
It can only be false.

Science can only be false?
See this makes me angry, even if science can't be proven, we can say through how successful it's been, that it has such a consistency, that it is NOT false.

>>1549862
>how successful it's been,
Technology has been successful. Science is only one part of technology
>that it has such a consistency
Like the consistency between quantum mechanics and general relativity?

>>1549857
>>1549857

This is pretty stupid though. You have some kind of Cartesian need for certainty that is itself wrong headed. but it is a philosophical need for certainty. Science doesn't work like that, nor does the universe.

You seem to be blaming an apple pie for not being an orange. The universe is all apple pie bro. Truth is not a cosmic concept, it is a human concept.

The succes

i just read that "math obscures reality" HOLY SHIT

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1549864

>Technology has been successful. Science is only one part of technology

> Science is only one part of technology

Moron detected.

>>1549867

>why do I write like a fucking idiot when drinking vodka.

>>1549871

>absolut vodka

>>1549870
>thinks a scientist could design anything except an experiment/highly abstract model
Cool story, bro.

>>1549867
On the contrary most a priori statements can be made with certainty. P V ¬P we know to be necessarily true. Science however only looks at observable empirical data. Any conclusions the scientific method makes is contingent on the accuracy of the data.

>>1549864
Science creates a model of understanding of the universe, no we cannot say definitively "This model is true". What we can say is based on all observable evidence, this model appears to work, it may not be true... but it works.
Science develops a model which can explain

>>1549876
>Science develops a model which can explain
>Bitches don't know about the Copenhagen Interpretation

>>1549879
Bitches also don't know about applicability of QM. Its not applicable/necessary in classical framework of day to day life.

>>1549885
If you don't use a microprocessor in your day to day life, sure.

>>1549888
How is this even relevant to Philosophy of classical reality?

>>1549889
>Philosophy of classical reality
>implying there is such a thing
Oh, I'm sorry, my mind reading powers are a little off today. I'll make sure next time to keep the discussion to shit you make up.

>>1549876

>P V ¬P we know to be necessarily true.

You seem to think you can apply these types of epistemic-logical notions to theories in fundamental physics. In physics we are dealing with reality, and what is or is not the case. Not necessarily with truth in the logical philosophical sense.

As I said you are applying a set of 'truth' standards from one discipline and (mis)applying them to another.

>>1549892
But in physics there is no truth. Anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot, a quack, or both.

>>1549893

>But in physics there is no truth.

Yes but you have to presuppose a classical philosophical notion of truth to say this.

Truth in physics is something like: accuracy of model X to the physical world etc.. This is not a robust theory of truth, but so what?

You might well say that a theory in science, by definition cannot be said to be true (al la Evolution), but this is only if you presuppose a given logical notion of truth, which many people currently working in science just do not accept.

>>1549898
In reality it's "Confidence of accuracy of model x to reality". A model can appear to fit reality to some accuracy, but we have little to no confidence in it. The confidence is the part which makes it impossible to have truth.

I'm guessing you've read the Feynman lectures. While they're great, they gloss over this kind of stuff (though I don't think there was any claim to truth).

>>1549902

>I'm guessing you've read the Feynman lectures.

No I'm simply saying that traditional philosophical notions of truth and falsity do not apply, indeed are not applicable to -- science.

>A model can appear to fit reality to some accuracy, but we have little to no confidence in it.

Again with the philosophical reliance on epistemic notions. The 'accuracy' of a model depends on the universe, not on our activity of comparing the universe with the model. I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but check out some Bhaskar if your interested.

>>1549902

>scientists are all pragmatists. truth just means its successful

>deal with it.

>>1549898
Would you say there is no objective truth, that philosophy seeks objective truth and science seeks a more pragmatic subjective truth or something else?

>>1549906
>No I'm simply saying that traditional philosophical notions of truth and falsity do not apply, indeed are not applicable to -- science.
Which is why there are conditions of falsifiability. It all makes sense now.

>Again with the philosophical reliance on epistemic notions. The 'accuracy' of a model depends on the universe, not on our activity of comparing the universe with the model. I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but check out some Bhaskar if your interested.
Bhaskar is a house built on sand. His thinking isn't codified into the culture of the scientific community either, unlike the philosophers he criticizes.

The fundamental difference here is that you want to believe that nature is nice and ordered, that it makes sense. There is no reason to believe this.

>>1549911
No, truth =! success. In science, truth is never talked about, at best only proximity to the truth.

>>1549914
philosophy isn't seeking Truth with a capital t either.

>>1549914
>>1549914

>Would you say there is no objective truth

Hey the universe might turn out to be entirely contingent. The laws of gravity could conceivably change tomorrow.

This philosophical notion of objective i.e. eternal truth seems to be unhelpful (and as I said 'inapplicable') when talking about science. There may be no eternal way the universe is, and hence any 'true' statement about the universe might turn out to be entirely provisional.

That doesn't mean that what we currently know is 'unobjective' and hence subjective.

Remember that it is not the character of science that imposes a determinate pattern or order on the world; but the order of the world that … makes possible the cluster of activities we call 'science'. Philosophers have things ass-backwards.

>>1549931
>>1549931

Fuck off you Nietzsche loving slime ball. How dare you speak for 'philosophers'.

A conversation with adults is in progress. Now kindly fuck off.

>>1549933
what are you on about retard. just pragmatist here.

>>1549934

Nietzsche thread is that way. Go away.

>>1549937
so presumptive this guy must be a foundationalist

>>1549932

>That doesn't mean that what we currently know is 'unobjective' and hence subjective.

Cannot be said to objective or subjective because such terms are literally inapplicable in the case of science.

Again though, this is not post-modern posturing. I study physics, my major is physics and I love science.

>>1549939
>>1549939

Putnam-style pragmatism is stupid. Again get the fuck out.

>>1549943
what do you like?

>>1549944

I like my onion rings to be calming sitting in my colon waiting to be shit out.

>>1549945
sure, but what philosophers do you like.

>>1549945

good day sir, i bid you good day.

>Bhaskar is a house built on sand. His thinking isn't codified into the culture of the scientific community either, unlike the philosophers he criticizes.

I doubt that you have read Bhaskar.

>There is no reason to believe this.

Agreed. And scientists have thought this for years.

>sure, but what philosophers do you like.

None of them.

>>1549957
well thats cool enjoy your pretheoretical soup

>>1549976
>>1549976

>thinks that only philosophers do theory.

>mfw

>>1549976
I love soup.

>>1549982
>thinks everyone uses his idea of theory
>mfw