[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.72 MB, 1512x2048, 6F0D61DA-7B99-4450-AAC5-A1FD37C4D393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20842289 No.20842289 [Reply] [Original]

Does anyone know of good academic articles or book sections written on the harmony or antinomy of Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic and the Theory of Relativity?

>> No.20842317
File: 252 KB, 300x371, Kant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20842317

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i327ubQopqY

>> No.20842398

>>20842289
bumpo

>> No.20842403

>>20842289
I'm personally interested on how the theory of relativity would impact Kant's understanding of the sensible intuitions. Space and time being merged into space-time? Fascinating.

>> No.20842492

>>20842403
If anything, special relativity further affirms that space and time are linked to our cognition. The structure of flat spacetime in special relativity is purely geometric in nature. The fact that physics is independent of the inertial frame of reference observed from is mathematically described by the (inhomogeneous) Lorentz group, ISO(1,3), also called the Poincare group. The group relates two inertial observers moving with respect to one another via a hyperbolic rotation in the plane spanned by time and one of the three spatial coordinates. Therefore relative motion in time is treated purely geometrically.
General relativity goes even further and posits that acceleration itself is a consequence of curvature of spacetime. The curvature of a worldline in spacetime contains full information about the dynamics of the associated particle at any point in its motion, because it is precisely the four-acceleration. Furthermore, Einstein's equations tell us that spacetime curvature and energy-momentum are equivalent. Since modern theories such as QFT treat matter as nothing more than a current of energy-momentum, one can say that even matter itself is linked to our cognition of it via geometry.

>> No.20842496

>>20842492
What if string theory is true, i.e., the world is broken into 10-11 dimensions, many of which are super-sensible?

>> No.20842500

>>20842496
Go conduct an experiment that shows that it's true. Oh wait, all the string mumbo-jumbo cannot be probed in our lifetimes? Sorry, bud, I don't care.
t. phenomenology phd student

>> No.20842504

>>20842500
That's a dogmatic opinion. You're rejecting the possibility of the unknown unknown despite the plausibility of it being true. Fish in water moment.

>> No.20842510

>>20842504
It's called the scientific method, retard. It's not science unless there is empirical evidence of it. Unfortunately, a lot of my colleagues in HEP theory are unaware of this and preach their bullshit so that people like you think of my field as some sci-fi nonsense that needs no experimental confirmation.

>> No.20842663

>>20842510
>experimental confirmation
ASNEED you pleb snYYYYYYD
experiments and outcomes depend on the observer, which means you's a trun and in yer case g-d is not real (not real) lmao :DDDD NOW WITNESS THEM DIGITS

>> No.20842790

>>20842510
>muh scientific method
we've got a retard in an epistemic straitjacket here

>> No.20842874

>>20842790
Kantianism is a mental straitjacket: some people's fetish.

>> No.20843644

>>20842874
Kantianism exists for a reason. How do you tell the difference between someone who knows and a schizo?

>> No.20843951

>>20843644
>exists for a reason
And that reason is Kant being an ontological janny.

Schizo is anti-''''reason'''' because Schizo is pro-Truth which is Life, which is Dynamis, which is Freedom. Schizo is a person of the future employed by the Cosmos to make it Right: nature in multiplicity and division.

Not '''''left'''' vs ' '''''''''''''''''''''''''ŗight'''''''''''''''''''''''''' but Schizos (theological epistemology based on Faith) vs Kantian-Jannies (kantian epistemology based solely on having temporary power to delete posts and intimidate by appealing to authority which, in its turn, is based on whatever the current prejudices are). now watch this >>20842317

>> No.20844058

>>20842510
Well you REALLY fucking love science, don’t you?

>> No.20844080

>>20843951
You're engaging in too much memespeak for me. I don't consider Kant to be a janny but rather an honest critic who must be overcome in some way.

>> No.20844218

>>20844080
>too much
No. Memæ speaks not enough.
>an honest critic
>must be overcome in some way
The way to overcome is never stepping into Kant. Those who are conditioned enough to lose their calling of the heart (epistemology based on Faith) are doomed. That's it. You'll keep running circles debating various angles of the 'biography of the head' but in the end you'll concede to 'science' — and for that reason Plato decried poets to be sent out of the city. Kant is a well-schooled unbeliever, read about his reaction on the Swedenborg moment. It is verbatim 'NOOO you cannot do that NOO'.

>> No.20844225

>>20844058
I genuinely hate faggots who worship my trade like some religion and consider scientists authority figures. Even more so I hate scientists who abuse this naïveté and assume the said authority.

>> No.20844250

>>20844218
if you just dip your head into the sand you don't have to listen to the problems. brilliant! I'll sit you down right next to Hide-nigger

>> No.20844268

>>20842289
>Does anyone know of good academic articles or book sections written on the harmony or antinomy of Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic and the Theory of Relativity?
no

>> No.20844298

>>20842289
Ask /r/askphilosophy on you know where. Maybe you'll get a dispassionate nerd who will answer your question.

>> No.20844337

>>20844250
>ah, the obsessed
It's Hide-Egger really. And yes, I prefer to be amongus the Found-Eggers than vice verses.

>> No.20844387

>>20844337
You don't have a good answer.

>> No.20844524

>>20843644
And that reason is to try and salvage whatever he could from the rationalist tradition after Hume had refuted it. He had to find some way to preserve metaphysics and objective morality so he came up with one of the biggest systems of mental gymnastics in philosophic history and enabled the obscurantist continentals to peddle their nonsense for another few hundred years.

>> No.20844576

>>20844524
Hey, don't hate on Kant. He did some decent triage. The categorical imperative refutes trannyism if you use it properly.

>> No.20844623

>>20844576
The problem is that it's completely arbitrary. Whether or not it is used is based on the subjective determination of its value which stems from the sentiment of the subject which is to say that Hume was right again and Kant is a faggot.

>> No.20844634

>>20844623
Like I said, it's triage. I don't understand what it means to "universally" will something, especially after Kant dunks on pure reason.

>> No.20845296

bump

>> No.20845313

>>20842289
>This paper tentatively concludes that the oft stated claim that Einstein’s theory of general relativity decisively refutes neo-Kantian philosophy of science in favor logical empiricism is, to a large extent, unwarranted. 6 The question of whether general relativity is an unambiguous confirmation of logical idealism is left for a future discussion.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jpp2139/Kant_GR_Draft7v2.pdf
Also there's the SEP:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genrel-early/

>> No.20845546

People who ask this are the same ones who think Quine refuted Kan’s analytic- synthetic distinction.

>> No.20845574

>>20845546
and how did he not?

>> No.20845590

>>20842510
Imagine trying to convey the scientific method as an argument to midwits on /lit/. Its funny how you were dunking on string theory using the empirical method, something most /lit/tards don't give two fucks about. Yet they came crawling out of their slimey gutters the moment they heard "scientific method"

They have absolute ZERO standards of critical inquiry and half of these retards believe in shit far far worse than string theory. Basically like women who larp with astrology and tarrots.

>>20844225
Lmao you don't need to appease to a bunch of anti-science dimwits. You are better than that

>> No.20845608

>>20845574
lol

>> No.20845615

>>20845590
I only asked a hypothetical question. Why can't we speculate about the various possibilities? People forget that you're supposed to have a hypothesis before you can design an experiment to test it.

>> No.20845622

>>20845608
I'm being serious. I'm pretty sure that's the only valuable thing that Quine ever did. It should have killed analytic philosophy where it stood.

>> No.20845718

>>20845622
>It should have killed analytic philosophy where it stood.

Why?

>> No.20845770

>>20845718
I was being a tad hyperbolic because I hate dry, dispassionate writing styles, the attempt to reduce philosophy, a way of living, to a series of pseudomathematical equations. I think the vast majority of the field is morally and intellectually bankrupt, an egregious pretension if I've ever seen one. But I digress.

Because it's never clear what statements are analytic and what statements are synthetic. They boil down to levels of prior understanding. Analytic terms are not supposed to require prior experience in order to be understood. There's a classic example: all bachelors are unmarried. You'd have to know what a bachelor refers to to know that they're unmarried. If this is the first time you've heard about the term, then it's synthetic. There is also trouble in trying to understand what mathematical proofs are. Are they analytic? Or synthetic? Kant thought they were synthetic because geometry relied on the sensible intuitions of space and time, hence experience. Yet proofs are supposed to function by being a type of extended, step-by-step definition. So isn't it really analytic? Finally, there's also a contextual, linguistic phenomenon happening in the background here, in the formulation of statements, borrowing from what you already know, closing in on the meaning from the text through the hermeneutic cycle, etc. Trying to zone in on any given statement and seeing if it is analytic or synthetic, of which logical atomism is the extreme case, is just a fool's errand. No interpretation happens in a vacuum.

>> No.20845799

>>20845770
>You'd have to know what a bachelor refers to to know that they're unmarried.
Of course. But as soon as you know what a bachelor is, you know that they are unmarried, because bachelor and unmarried are the same thing. Therefore they are inseparable and analytic. "A bachelor has an XY chromosome configuration" would be synthetic because learning what a bachelor is does not tell you that, even though it might turn out to be true of all bachelors.

>> No.20845812

>>20845799
>"A bachelor has an XY chromosome configuration" would be synthetic because learning what a bachelor is does not tell you that, even though it might turn out to be true of all bachelors.
You are only correct because today we live in clown world where bachelors can have vaginas.

>> No.20846799

bump

>> No.20847188

>>20845615
You absolutely can. The problem is, string theory effects only become apparent at Planck scales. That's 10^19 GeV. For comparison, the LHC operates at 10^4 GeV. That's a 15 orders-of-magnitude difference. Any effect that string theory claims (like compactified extra dimensions) would require galactic-scale experiments. Literally. I don't expect any of this stuff to be observable within the next 1000 years at least. Unfortunately, Nature doesn't give a shit about a bunch of monkeys on a floating rock, so it didn't make sure all of its laws can be probed by us. The real reason string theorists talk about muh extra dimensions is that their shit simply doesn't work in 4 dimensions. A prudent theorist would have abandoned the idea, instead the string people just milk the DoE for grants, because they know the average Joe working there doesn't know jack shit anyways.

>> No.20847401

>>20847188
>You absolutely can.
Okay, so what do you think is possibly true? Just humor me here.

>> No.20847415

>>20847401
Nature doesn't care about what I think is true. Frankly, I don't either. I work on models that are either experimentally confirmed or not. I'm not the judge here.

>> No.20847432

>>20847415
Nature throws us a bone by allowing us to figure out its secrets from time to time. If you can't even throw out possibilities then you can't do the scientific method. Hypothesis generation 101.

>> No.20847435

>>20847432
Bro, I think you shouldn't visit Kant threads judging by your posts. Stick to Nietzsche and Sartre threads. Did you even read at least one of his Critiques?

>> No.20847461

>>20847435
Have you read the Critique of Judgment?

>> No.20848431

>>20847435
damn, I was really hoping to get some half-baked but interesting speculations from you. it's literally 4chan my guy. if they're shit, nobody's gonna care and it will amount to nothing.

>> No.20848436

>>20842289
My diary desu

>> No.20850190

>>20842500
muh experiment