/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20384240]

This shit freaks me out desu. Wtf is the universe?

[Anonymous No.20384247]

>>20384240
>space and time aren't transcendental categories
Kantbros I don't feel so good

[Anonymous No.20384268]

>>20384247
S/T being emergent structures would just give credence to the argument that human cognition doesn’t not apprehend reality directly but mediated. The fact that we would have a conception of some “greater reality” and that it can only be known indirectly through it spatial and temporal effects as oppose to apprehend immediately is also in support of Kant’s view.

[Anonymous No.20384276]

>>20384240
Why does this freak you out? It's an epiphenomenon. Existence would be no less mysterious if Newton had been right.

[Anonymous No.20384279]

>>20384268
>The fact that we would have a conception of some “greater reality” and that it can only be known indirectly through it spatial and temporal effects as oppose to apprehend immediately is also in support of Kant’s view.
This is confused. You're using known indirectly to mean measured empirically while at the same time acknowledging that we can have some concept in our minds of "greater reality" that doesn't need space or time.

[Anonymous No.20384282]

We are some kid's science project

[Anonymous No.20384288]

>>20384240
We have known this for decades.

[Anonymous No.20384291]

>>20384282
And that some kid... is God!!!

[Anonymous No.20384293]

>>20384240
I think it's the Hindus or whatever who said the Universe is the dream of a God. I think that's nice.

[Anonymous No.20384295]

>>20384291
Explains all the suffering. It's a child and he's kept his hobby project this long because of some curious attachment. One mood swing and he'll destroy the whole thing

[Anonymous No.20384299]

>>20384240
>Wtf is the universe?
1. Change is a real feature of the world. Many things around us change.
2. So, actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.
3. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualized it. This is the principle of causality.
4. So any change C is caused by something already actual A.
5. The occurance of change presupposes some thing S which changes.
6. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S's potential for existence.
7. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.
8. A's own existence at the moment it actualizes itself presupposes either:
+ the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence (a) or
+ A's being purely actual. (b).
9. (a) If A's existence at the moment it actualizes *S presupposes the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either
+ infinite (c) or
+ terminates in a purely actual actualizer (d).
10. (c) But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitue a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UW3Imn5b8))
11. So, either (b) A itself is a purely actual actualizer or (d) there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.
12. So, (4) the occurence of change C and thus (6) the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.
13. So, there is a purely actual actualizer (PAA).

[Anonymous No.20384300]

>>20384240
Space and time are only categories for mortals

[Anonymous No.20384304]

>>20384279
> This is confused.
No, you are. Read the Transcendental Aesthetic again. Kant never denies our ability to conceive of things outside of the reach of our imagination such as “infinity” or “God”, he contends however that such concepts are restricted to spatial/temporal limits when imagined. This “greater reality” outside of s/t can only be understood in spatial/temporal ways by us even if the concept is by definition non-spatial/temporal

[Anonymous No.20384308]

>>20384240
>Wtf is the universe
the forms

[Anonymous No.20384319]

>>20384304
>Kant never denies our ability to conceive of things outside of the reach of our imagination such as “infinity” or “God”, he contends however that such concepts are restricted to spatial/temporal limits when imagined. This “greater reality” outside of s/t can only be understood in spatial/temporal ways by us even if the concept is by definition non-spatial/temporal
You're drawing a distinction between a concept and imagining that concept that doesn't make sense. Physicists have come up with theories that are non-temporal and non-spatial at a fundamental level even if they haven't been verified. Do you specifically mean you can only visualize things in space and time?

[Anonymous No.20384321]

>>20384319
>>20384304
>>20384240
Not literature.

[Anonymous No.20384346]

>>20384319
> You're drawing a distinction between a concept and imagining that concept that doesn't make sense.
Imagination is bound up with your ability to apprehend the world around you. A born-blind can never imagine light though they can conceive a theory of light explained as waves or vibration. But this concept lacks that quality that we refer to and experience as light to our eyes. This is an obvious an old distinction in philosophy and science. We, like the blind man, can talked about things beyond s/t, but we have no immediate (“sensory”) knowledge of it, only knowledge of it in terms of s/t. A mathematical theory of it for example would be relaying on the forms of quantity for example, which we derive from s/t.

[Anonymous No.20384366]

>>20384346
>Imagination is bound up with your ability to apprehend the world around you. A born-blind can never imagine light though they can conceive a theory of light explained as waves or vibration
I don't see how it makes any sense to say you can conceive of something you can't imagine. That is a nonsense statement.
>We, like the blind man, can talked about things beyond s/t, but we have no immediate (“sensory”) knowledge of it, only knowledge of it in terms of s/t.
Again you're confusing empirical data with knowing or conceiving something.
>A mathematical theory of it for example would be relaying on the forms of quantity for example, which we derive from s/t.
And this is just straight up wrong. There are fields of math where space and time have zero meaning.

[Anonymous No.20384396]

>An image of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, a behemoth dubbed Sagittarius A*, revealed by the Event Horizon Telescope on May 12, 2022. (Image credit: Event Horizon Telescope collaboration)
uhh bros?

[Anonymous No.20384404]

>>20384396
>supermassive black hole
*kinky guitar riffs*

[Anonymous No.20384421]

>>20384396
Would any of you sirs deign to join into some sort of a cult around this black hole at the center of our universe?

[Anonymous No.20384425]

>>20384366
> I don't see how it makes any sense to say you can conceive of something you can't imagine. That is a nonsense statement.
I already told. A blind man can conceive of light as a wave but cannot imagine the actual quantity of light. If i told you, like Lovecraft, of an unimaginable horror, you could conceive that (as a concept), but by definition not imagine. It’s a very easy distinction to understand. I’m not go further on it since it’s basic and Kant explains in the first like 20-40 pages of the Critique. You can’t really offer your opinion on Kant being wrong like >>20384247 if you can’t even understand this.
> Again you're confusing empirical data with knowing or conceiving something.
No, i’m not. Imagination as a faculty, in both conventional and philosophical uses is bound up with the senses. When you “imagine” anything it is in sensory terms. I have said nothing about “knowing”, conceiving is a different faculty that doesn’t rely on the senses since it is abstract. You don’t have to “know” that which you conceive and you don’t have to imagine it either.
> There are fields of math where space and time have zero meaning.
Explain what a quantity is without relying on any concept that draws up from our a priori knowledge of space.

[Anonymous No.20384430]

>>20384240
Space and time are mere creatures. They are creations of God. You'd know this if you had read your Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.20384440]

>>20384240
>Wtf is the universe?
The universe as it's presented to you in pop-culture? A jewish construction that seeks to destroy God.

[Anonymous No.20384444]

>>20384366
>>20384425
I’m going to bed and cannot wait for your answer, so instead, for your own edification, not convince you, but at least so that you run your mouth on a subject you’re ignorant off: try to formulate an explanation of either space or time to some being who knows of neither. Try to formulate this answer without relying on concepts that in them already assume a knowledge of space or time. You cant use “distance” or “sequence” or “limit” and so on. S/T as the conditions for experience makes them unexplainable because our use of knowledge requires them as a priori forms in order to begin to experience and subsequently think. Good Nights

[Anonymous No.20384455]

>>20384425
>If i told you, like Lovecraft, of an unimaginable horror, you could conceive that (as a concept), but by definition not imagine. It’s a very easy distinction to understand.
It's not a distinction it's a word game. I asked above if by imagine you specifically mean visualize since that's the way you seem to be using imagine. If that is what is meant by transcendental categories it's not very important. I don't see why visualization has anything to do with philosophy at all.
>Explain what a quantity is without relying on any concept that draws up from our a priori knowledge of space.
There are fields of math where quantity isn't a thing. There was even another post here today about category theory.

[Anonymous No.20384460]

>>20384430
based and the only rational reply in this thread

[Anonymous No.20384462]

>>20384455
> I asked above if by imagine you specifically mean visualize since that's the way you seem to be using imagine.
A blind mind can imagine without visualizing. Adieu

[Anonymous No.20384463]

>>20384444
>try to formulate an explanation of either space or time to some being who knows of neither. Try to formulate this answer without relying on concepts that in them already assume a knowledge of space or time.
Does formulate an explanation refer to imagination or a concept? You've drawn that goofy distinction so you need to stick with it. Do I need to make some imagine space and time or conceive of it?

[Anonymous No.20384471]

>>20384462
Rofl but that counters what you said above about blind man not being able to imagine light. Your position is incoherent

[Anonymous No.20384488]

>>20384455
>There are fields of math where quantity isn't a thing.
No shit, there is also such a thing as logic where quantity is not relevant. "Boolean algebra" gets included in discrete mathematics for some reason. He's asking you to explain quantity and make it intelligible without implicit or explicit reference to space and time. It can't be done because quantity must A) be more than a mere unity (ie divisibility, which is either divisibility in time or in space), and B) must be capable of being subject to successive iteration, ie it requires time to allow for the intelligibility of its divisibility (the only way to know the quantity of a number is to count its units - a numeric symbol or algebraic symbol do not have meaning apart from the units). Visualization is not the important part, what is important is the fact that we cannot visualize what we cannot perceive in external reality as we are capable of comprehending it, therefore the mind and external reality are mutually locked together. Any theory which posits more than what can be imagined is effectively an empty explanation of how things appear to us.

[Anonymous No.20384496]

>>20384488
>No shit, there is also such a thing as logic where quantity is not relevant. "Boolean algebra" gets included in discrete mathematics for some reason. He's asking you to explain quantity and make it intelligible without implicit or explicit reference to space and time.
It must not be too obvious otherwise you wouldn't be asking. Set theory is taught as the current foundation for math and the natural and real numbers are derived from that. No space or time needed just logic.

[Anonymous No.20384507]

>>20384488
>Any theory which posits more than what can be imagined is effectively an empty explanation of how things appear to us.
This is goofy and is echoed by cranks in physics that insist everything must have a mechanism that they can intuitively understand. A theory that is "empty" in your view can produce verifiable results and even more amazing this "empty" theory can be taken as a stepping stone for the development by physicists for further "empty" theories.

[Anonymous No.20384513]

>>20384496
So show what 4 is without using space or time. What is it to be 4 as opposed to being true or false?
>Set theory
Which implicitly uses both space and time, it's not actually pure logic, it just appears that way. You cannot come to the idea of the number 4 using true, false and the logical relationships between the subjects and expressions. Set theory is just another implicit use of space and time, where these two latter have simply been abstracted into analytic rules which "hold up" when contrasted with the common sense understanding of quantity. It's mathematical autism which does not want to admit the crudity of the very basics it is actually working with.

[Anonymous No.20384516]

>>20384507
>A theory that is "empty" in your view can produce verifiable results
Producing verifiable results without having necessity or comprehensibility by definition makes it empty to me. It doesn't detract from the fact that it can produce results. Telling lies produces results if it makes someone do something beneficial towards me. That only makes the lie valuable in one sense, I would not venture to assert that the lie could simultaneously be true because it is effective, because that would violate LNC.

[Anonymous No.20384519]

>>20384513
4 in one formulation of the natural numbers in set theory is {{{{}}}}. I would really like to know how you think set theory uses space or time. This could even have some real mathematical importance, does set theory assume Euclidean space? Tell me please

[Anonymous No.20384527]

>>20384516
>Producing verifiable results without having necessity or comprehensibility by definition makes it empty to me.
And this is a crank answer. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it empty(notice you didn't say false). It sounds like Kant listed off some common intuitions of his own day and claimed them as universal. Now that science and math has advanced(non-Euclidean geometry was discovered after he died) it's clear that Kant's intuition aren't true physically and they don't restrict us mentally.

[Anonymous No.20384533]

>>20384240
Ahab was right. All visible objects are pasteboard masks.

[Anonymous No.20384542]

>>20384519
>{{{{}}}}
Which is 4 divisible units contained inside one another, the key point being virtual divisibility (in space), with the only difference from the normal crude view being they are contained in each other. In other words, space and time as divisibility and iterability is necessary to comprehend what this even means before the rules of operation are established symbolically. Giving me symbolic notation and telling me "there, that's 4" is meaningless. Why is {{{{}}}} not the number 5? The answer is because that is not how the rule works. So what is the rule actually based upon?
If we imagine the indivisibility of space, then the question is whether or not 4 equal sets which do not contain nor are contained by each other are equivalent to the number 4 (they are all exactly equal and indistinct sets). What is the difference between 5 equal sets, or 6? There is none because they are indivisible and equal. Just like there is no difference between 1*4 and 1*5, only a symbolic difference.

[Anonymous No.20384550]

>>20384519
No it isnt

[Anonymous No.20384552]

>>20384240
Yes eternity is the true reality. This is where God dwells and we all have to give an account to Him. If you are not living your life trusting and obeying Christ then you are going to be condemned. (Im not talking about perfect obedience im talking about dedicating your life to Christ’s service)

[Anonymous No.20384553]

>>20384542
>no difference between 1*4 and 1*5,
meant 0*4/5

[Anonymous No.20384556]

>>20384299
not sure i agree because it makes some very axiomatic assumptions that may or may not be true, but thank u for this. very interesting breakdown

[Anonymous No.20384562]

>>20384542
>Which is 4 divisible units contained inside one another, the key point being virtual divisibility (in space), with the only difference from the normal crude view being they are contained in each other
A goofy fucking response, no matter what I wrote it would be divisible units in the space of the screen.
>If we imagine the indivisibility of space, then the question is whether or not 4 equal sets which do not contain nor are contained by each other are equivalent to the number 4 (they are all exactly equal and indistinct sets). What is the difference between 5 equal sets, or 6? There is none because they are indivisible and equal
You're arguing against something you just made up. 5 in the formulation I gave is a clearly distinct set {{{{{}}}}}. There is no space needed and if there was it would have significant effects on the rest of math. All kinds of bizarre topologies and measures are built using set theory there is no implicit notion of space in set theory otherwise those constructions would fail

[Anonymous No.20384571]

\>>20384527
>Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it empty(notice you didn't say false).
Of course not, that would be absurd. It's empty because it is by necessarily incomprehensible, unimaginable and unverifiable in concrete experience, in addition to being completely falsifiable.
> and they don't restrict us mentally.
Of course they don't restrict us mentally. That was part of Kant's point. The main takeaway though is that our mind (our "mental ability") is not a good judge of actual reality, instead it is good at conjecture based on sense experience which can never furnish anything beyond sense experience except empty concepts. These empty concepts are useful for acting in the world but not "truthful", as he says in his Critique of Practical Reason.

[Anonymous No.20384575]

>>20384550
Meh it works. Here is 4 another way
{{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}, {{}, {{}}, {{}, {{}}}}}

[Anonymous No.20384580]

>>20384575
Almost

[Anonymous No.20384589]

>>20384562
>no matter what I wrote it would be divisible units in the space of the screen.
What actually are these sets if not groups which contain other groups, having divisibility predicated of them (the fact that they "contain" elements)? I had assumed they were not divisible units on a screen which is obvious. But what is the difference between {{}} and {{{}}} if there is no divisibility, not even virtual (ie, beyond the symbols used). If we abstract from all divisibility, then does {{}} = {{}} or {{}} != {{}}? What actually determines their equality or inequality? Beyond just asserting "that is equal because I say it is", which is what it seems like you're doing.
>5 in the formulation I gave is a clearly distinct set {{{{{}}}}}
But why and how is it distinct, apart from "it's distinct because I say it is?"

[Anonymous No.20384592]

>>20384571
>It's empty because it is by necessarily incomprehensible, unimaginable and unverifiable in concrete experience, in addition to being completely falsifiable
Are you the guy claiming imaginable and conceive are two different things. And by comprehension do you mean conceivable? This whole thing is ridiculous these supposedly unimaginable and incomprehensible theories are routinely worked with and created by physicists. Well maybe not routinely but certain new theories throw out space and time.

[Anonymous No.20384597]

>space-time
Time is an entirely man made concept with no basis in reality.
You can't "bend" space.
There, solved your conundrum.

[Anonymous No.20384599]

>>20384580
That's what I wrote dumbass. I didn't use the empty set symbol and went to 4 instead of stopping at 3

[Anonymous No.20384604]

>>20384597
I'll bend you

[Anonymous No.20384606]

>>20384589
>Beyond just asserting "that is equal because I say it is", which is what it seems like you're doing.
>But why and how is it distinct, apart from "it's distinct because I say it is?"
Bro that's how definitions work. You asked me to define the natural numbers in set theory. I defined them.

[Anonymous No.20384610]

>>20384496
> Set theory isn't founded on mereology.
?

[Anonymous No.20384613]

>>20384610
Second sentence of the wikipedia article.
>Whereas set theory is founded on the membership relation between a set and its elements, mereology emphasizes the meronomic relation between entities, which—from a set-theoretic perspective—is closer to the concept of inclusion between sets.

[Anonymous No.20384614]

>>20384240
> In a landmark series of calculations
Lol.
I would even say, lmao.

[Anonymous No.20384617]

Physicist David Bohm explained all this like 60 years ago

[Anonymous No.20384629]

>>20384613
Membership is just the (literal) sign of inclusion.
Literally the smallest possible eidetic difference to make.

[Anonymous No.20384633]

>>20384240
I don’t know why scientists choose to publicize any of this shit when nothing substantial ever comes from it. Progress is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.20384636]

>>20384606
>Bro that's how definitions work
Definitions usually define something, not nothing.

[Anonymous No.20384645]

>>20384629
Point out to me which of the axioms of ZFC are mereological. Another choice quote from the wiki

Husserl never claimed that mathematics could or should be grounded in part-whole rather than set theory. Lesniewski consciously derived his mereology as an alternative to set theory as a foundation of mathematics, but did not work out the details. Goodman and Quine (1947) tried to develop the natural and real numbers using the calculus of individuals, but were mostly unsuccessful; Quine did not reprint that article in his Selected Logic Papers. In a series of chapters in the books he published in the last decade of his life, Richard Milton Martin set out to do what Goodman and Quine had abandoned 30 years prior. A recurring problem with attempts to ground mathematics in mereology is how to build up the theory of relations while abstaining from set-theoretic definitions of the ordered pair. Martin argued that Eberle's (1970) theory of relational individuals solved this problem.

[Anonymous No.20384651]

>>20384636
4 is defined as {{{{{}}}}}. If something is not {{{{{}}}}} it's not 4. That is a definition. Are you claiming that my 4 doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.20384654]

>>20384240
I was born too soon to understand the mysteries of the universe. these questions and a million others won't be answered in my lifetime. I hate it. why can't some super advanced alien species who's already figured all this out stop by and just tell us how all this shit works so we can hurry up and expand beyond this planet?