is the future a noumenon?

[Anonymous No.13564130]

so we can't know anything about the noumena, but what if "future" the term refers to phenomenon that comes from the noumena of the future?

so, let me put it this way:
if, and when the "future" is predictable say we plan for [x, y, z] and [x, y, z] or even [z, x, y, z...] etc. happen it may in a techincal phenomenal sense be techincally "future," but since it went accordingly to plan, the only new information/event it can ultimately yield is "plans are working correctly"
now if you plan for [x, y, z,] and get [x, y, 56]- something not only unplanned but unforseen entirely- you learn from it change your plans, and records the reason for doing so
this is the "Future" we refer to when we mean future with actual meaning that is intrinsic to "Future"- that is a future that is unknown and that consequently drives adaptation- a future we are inevitably driving ourselves toward.
if we could plan for this (i.e. know it) it wouldn't be the future. the only reason we CAN "know" enough to give it a damn and talk about the concept with ease is because we address it in relation to the phenomenon of past and present- the things that we observe or can observe
the future is the noumena contingent on the phenomena of the present

is this retarded? am I even making sense?
I'm retarded right?

[Anonymous No.13564141]

>>13564130
>give it a damn
uh, I meant give it a NAME, sorry

[Anonymous No.13564155]

>is the future a noumenon
Isn't that the whole shtick of Nick Land

[Anonymous No.13564165]

The future can't be a noumenon no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

By definition it cannot be, noumena is essentially the ontic totality.

The future is just the noumena in the future, not part of noumena.

[Anonymous No.13564169]

>>13564155
no he's a kantian

[OP No.13564192]

>>13564155
well Land basically defines it as AI, even though he includes in his definition that it is beyond our knowing
but the fact that he sees it as AI manifesting itself kind of makes it at least signifgantly less noumenal in that we at least can know that about it
but, again, I may be completely full of shit, I "study" this stuff in my free time

>>13564165
but in my rambling I;m thinking of the "future" as our understanding of the noumena producing phenomena
there would be unkowably more to the noumena outside of the "future" but future to us would be like an interpretation almost of the functioning of the noumena
in a sense I guess this implies the noumena is developing tthe phenomenal world but tat's a little outside what i was initially thinking

[Anonymous No.13565281]

>>13564130
Seemingly unnecessarily winded post with shitty writing towards that basic idea. Have you read Kant? Well the noumena is indeterminable, but we have been able to build from what makes the most sense, and that works. If space isnt real, then what do we do? Seems like your idea is basic and worthless.

[Anonymous No.13565316]

>>13565281
Of course I haven't fucking read Kant. I'm not writing what I think is going to occur anyway and then telling you I didn't really like it. It just didn't click with me. I'm a guy who's used to this and I did like it, but to make it as one of my own takes a lot of guts and it takes a very complex idea of how to communicate something complex, which I'm trying to write.

[Anonymous No.13565333]

>>13564155
it’s basically hegel. absolute spirit (which coincides with the end of history) is a regulative principle that bridges the gap between the phenomenal and noumenal after Kant.

[Anonymous No.13565343]

>>13565316
You ai fucker fuck off

[Anonymous No.13565375]

Predictions are like a lossy compression algorithm they exploit redundancies in the data relevant to your future. At the horizon of absolute chaos or maximal computational density prediction becomes impossible. Intelligence collapses into dumb matter at its apex.

[Anonymous No.13565494]

>>13565375
Big brain take, how do you lean politically?

[Anonymous No.13565506]

>>13565494
far right

[Anonymous No.13565520]

>>13565506
what kind of far right?

[Anonymous No.13565522]

>>13565520
i don't have any particular affiliation. i agree with stopping fags and immigrants doing their thing, i agree with hitler on a lot of things as well i don't trust the jews

[Anonymous No.13565525]

>>13565522
why do you hate people

[Anonymous No.13565527]

>>13565494
Those other replies aren't me. My primary near field political belief is against humanism and micromanagement. Reason for that is I believe the success of plans depends more on the selective pressures placed on them than rigorous implementation. The primary selective pressure right now is techonomic so the possible action space is all techonomic.

[Anonymous No.13565531]

>>13565527
That's almost as retarded as the other guy kek

[Anonymous No.13565550]

>>13565531
lol