/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23459417]

STEMfags from /sci/ are apparently too retarded to know about it so I'll post it here, too.

How does General Relativity relate to Transcendental Idealism?
Does it reinforce it or refute it? People can't seem to make up their mind about it.

[Anonymous No.23459437]

It’s the same people who think they can wish away the “harmful” things they read and/or see in their daily life by lying to themselves about their ability to manage a narrative of force that necessarily supersedes their boundary of technicities

[Anonymous No.23459459]

Some say Einstein really just combined neo-Kantian / quasi-Kantian epistemology of guys like Ernst Mach with late 19th century mathematical physics. And there was a whole Nazi thing about "Jewish science," "Jewish math," that argued that Einstein for example was relativistic like a typical Jew, didn't allow for any cosmic "center" or firm points of reference. More commonly the critique was of Angloid materialism though, you should check out the Forman thesis, named after Paul Forman.

I've never really seen people connect the (purportedly) ontologically real relativism of the Einsteinian physical world (which I have also heard that Einstein connected with some kind of Spinozist-lite modalism, at the level of his personal metaphysical beliefs?) with the relativism of extreme transcendental idealism, i.e., of radical constructivist/coherentist + relativist epistemologies based on Kant's idea of the subject totally conditioning its knowledge.

I do know there was a school of thought in the early 20th century that took seriously both Einsteinian relativity and the "platonic" reality of post-intuitive, algebraic geometry, claiming that these were necessary advances but only provided partial pictures of the actual cosmos, and needed to be sublimated into something higher. Guys like Ouspensky, working from inspiration by Hinton.

[Anonymous No.23459463]

>>23459417
If we are talking specifically about time and what Kant had to say about time then you may be interested in what Gödel had to say on the topic.

[Anonymous No.23459503]

>>23459417
It doesn’t you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.23459599]

So hypothetically if there was a way to travel faster than light would it refute or support Kant's ideas?
Asking for a friend, haha.

[Anonymous No.23459634]

>>23459417
deleuze wrote some shit about general relativity in bergsonism if you're interested.

[Anonymous No.23459644]

>>23459599
To travel at light speed according to Special Relativity there can be no mass. To say "something" could travel faster than light speed would disprove Special Relativity and in all honesty Hume makes a return to the stage.

[Anonymous No.23459929]

>>23459417
Doesn't Einstein make space objectively real, like Newton, but not in the Euclidean manner, and Kant make it an a priori form of intuition?

[Anonymous No.23460798]

>>23459459
>>23459463
>>23459634
Thanks for the recs, guys. /lit/ shows once again that, even at its lowest, it still has better posters than /sci/
>>23459929
How could spacetime be objectively real if it's different for each subject? That's why I think it matches Transcendental Idealism in some sense.

[Anonymous No.23460950]

>>23459417
Impossible to say, goes both ways really. While Einsteinian spacetime can be arguably viewed as an "object" as it is affected by the presence of energy and has a calculable shape, it also cannot be accessed other than relationally, determined by the objects within it and the observer.
Complementarity lies at the bottom of all such oppositions and one can't put them to rest by saying it's one thing instead of the other.

[Anonymous No.23460959]

>>23459417
I know people are going to judge me for my position but..general relativity and quantum mechanics are flawed. The works of Charles proteus Steinmetz, tesla, roger j buscovich and Walter Russell are far more logical, rational and correct when it comes to the nature of reality, specifically their views on light, waves and matter.

[Anonymous No.23461059]

Again and i've said this a lot here. Transcendental idealism is only a thing because kant studied newton who laid the foundations for the practical marriage btn idealism and rationalism, but you are too retarded and tunnel minded to see that so you go to sci to try and be high minded.

[Anonymous No.23461066]

>>23461059
*rationalism and empiricism

[Anonymous No.23461398]

>>23460798
I mean, Kant makes space a pure form of intuition of the subject, but insofar as it is an intersubjective condition of intuition, it could be regarded as objective, since there would be no phenomenon, no object without being in space. So it is difficult to say, objectivity and subjectivity seem blurred in both Kant and Einstein. I have a superficial understanding of the latter’s conception of space, this anon >>23460950 expressed the reason why I think Einstein’s conception could be regarded as objective.

[Anonymous No.23461402]

>>23461059
But that only due to More. So yeah you’re retarded too.

[Anonymous No.23462239]

>>23461398
heidegger fixes this issue btw, this subjectivization/objectivization of the subjects subjectivity is from a critical flaw in Kants subservience to traditional ontology. if he would have chased the implications of being as non-predicative, it would have undermined his presupposition that we are all inherently rational.

[Anonymous No.23462581]

>>23462239
>if he would have chased the implications of being as non-predicative, it would have undermined his presupposition that we are all inherently rational.
But I guess a Kantian response to it would be that the point is that we operate by such conditions, we construe Being and things in the categories of objectivity and subjectivity, however Being itself is, non-predicable as said, we cannot simply divest ourselves of categories.

[Anonymous No.23462593]

>>23459459
>post-intuitive algebraic geometry
what even is that?

[Anonymous No.23462600]

>>23462593
Geometry that throws out the parallel postulate and describes all shapes in algebraic/numerical terms instead of grounding them in intuitions (let alone constructible intuitions) of "classical" Euclidean/Platonic shapes in a classical 3D manifold

Allows geometry to go beyond 3D space and think of n-dimensional "geometries" but also divorces geometry finally and completely from real intuitions and intuitively describable ontologies with the necessity of seeming coherent to a human being, a move that already began to be made in the late 16th and early 17th century with the displacement of pre-modern intuitions about infinite continua and their replacement by proto-modern notions about the infinite divisibility of the set of rational numbers / the number line (two related concepts), and therefore any actual geometrical line or curve

Kline's Loss of Certainty talks about it, also Klein's Greek Mathematics and the Origins of Algebra.

[Anonymous No.23463354]

>>23462581
heidegger doesn't do away with kants philosophy, he fixes it. Being is prior to anything categorical, which he relegates to a substantive mode of being. Pure intuition, understanding, and reason are all subordinate modes of being that belong to substance (present-at-hand), and occur during a withdrawal from relations with entities within the world, forcing them to stand opposed as subject and object.

I'm simplifying a great amount of detail into a little paragraph, but essentially subject and object are presuppositional constructs of a metaphysical tradition of self sufficiency. Being is non-categorical, until cognized as present at hand. Then, we can no longer divest ourselves of the categories.

If kant had investigated his ontology all the way through, he would have found this himself. but since being is not conceptually determining, and amounts to perception as absolute position (a directedness-towards), we have to ask ourselves what is perception? is it the perciever? the percieved? the act of perception itself? Kant left this Ambiguous, which leads to an erroneous subjectivization/objectivization of being. but being is deeper than that.

[Anonymous No.23463435]

>>23459417
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is not accepted (taboo).

- Robert Laughlin

[Anonymous No.23463445]

>>23459417
it refutes it. People who dont understand why it refutes it dont understand what Kant actually meant by "apodictic." He meant the judgements were also universally valid. I guarantee that Kant believed that "the geometry of the EMPIRICAL universe obeys parallel postulate." Kant thought that matter itself was a priori and if you read critique it seems he even thought the newtonian concept of force was at least partially a priori.

People do not understand how counterintuitive Kants transcendental argument actually is. Take the argument for causality. Causality is a condition of experience because the mind needs a rule to order events in time. But this implies the ideality of time is way more extreme position than it appears at first. It seems to imply that the events all just sort of exist out there not in time at all, and the mind somehow knows all of them at once so that it can pick them out and put them into an order according to causality. People underestimate the extent to which transcendental conditions of perception can determine empirical perception in Kantian philosophy. Kant's position isn't that far from being able to a priori deduce newtonian mechanics. Dude had a massive hard on for Newton so I don't doubt that he would be EXTREMELY surprised that the parallel postulate may not hold in empirical reality, and I definitely think when he used the word "apodictic" he meant "It is IMPOSSIBLE For the physical universe to not be governed by parallel postulate because the propositions of mathematics are based on the conditions of all experience." We literally could not in any way experience a universe where parallel postulate is false according to Kant.

[Anonymous No.23463467]

>>23463435
Why woulf we call it ether when its nothing like ether?
It's not that the word has a negative connotation, it's that the word does not apply.

[Anonymous No.23463475]

>>23463467
How is it not like ether?

[Anonymous No.23463480]

>>23463475
It's not a medium?

[Anonymous No.23463482]

>>23463475
>>23463435
can you give a mathematical definition of "ether" or "medium"? i.e. one that isn't just a vague metaphor completely irrelevant to the actual content of what relativity says?

the whole idea of ether is that waves need actual pressure differentials or something similar to propagate (which they don't need in relativity). it relates to the actual mathematical description of waves in a concrete way. even then it was still vague, and now the way you're using it is even worse. describing einsteinian space as "ether" or "medium" is just a metaphor with no real relevance to the actual content of relativity. all it has relevancy to is how you personally perceive words and concepts.

[Anonymous No.23463485]

>>23459459
Dude these are all just fucking words to me

[Anonymous No.23463486]

>>23463482
>which they don't need in relativity
although I guess I shouldn't say "in relativity" since there is already no pressure differential or anything like sound or water waves in maxwells equations, really it isn't even relativity that "debunks" ether. the concept of ether just isnt necessary for understanding EM waves.

[Anonymous No.23463496]

>>23463482
>About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether.
Did you skip over this entire part? The ether is the "vacuum" of space.

[Anonymous No.23463509]

>>23463496
quantum fluctuations dont prove space is a "medium". you can still imagine this quantum shit happening "in" space rather than space itself being the random vacuum excitations of quantum phenomena. space is continuous and continues to exist far below the quantum level.

you're basically continuing the same old thing of people thinking space is a medium because of air. except instead of air particles producing the supposed "medium" it's a bunch of quantum vacuum bullshit

[Anonymous No.23463521]

>>23463496
The points made to support the argument do not have anything to do with it.
>radioactive study suggests space has a structure
okay
>vacuum isnt empty
...???????
that doesnt fucking support the claim made, its just a random factoid.

>relativistic ether
this nigger is using a vague definition of ether to suggest the scientific theory of ether is valid, thats asinine.

[Anonymous No.23464221]

>>23463509
>space is continuous and continues to exist far below the quantum level.
That is a metaphysical claim.

[Anonymous No.23464773]

>>23464221
It is not a metaphysical claim. In order to even use differential equations to describe space, it has to be continuous.

[Anonymous No.23464860]

>>23460959
I would suggest that one doesn't need to read Russell but essentially this.

[Anonymous No.23464906]

>>23459417
Einstein was a kantian physicist, but Kant wasn't an einsteinian philosopher. General relativity doesn't contradict Kant's transcendental aesthetic. One is physical while the other is metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.23465148]

>>23464906
this isn't true althoughbeit

[Anonymous No.23465332]

>>23464906
>One is physical while the other is metaphysical.
the TA has implications for the physical world because it directly implies we cannot perceive anything that does not conform to our intuitions

[Anonymous No.23466134]

>>23464773
>It is not a metaphysical claim
yes it is.

[Anonymous No.23466192]

>>23466134
Damn, TIL that non continuous functions are differentiable. Thanks /lit/.

[Anonymous No.23466199]

>>23466192
you do not understand metaphysics

[Anonymous No.23466204]

>>23466199
don’t you know who I am?

[Anonymous No.23466205]

>>23466204
no

[Anonymous No.23466220]

>>23466205
then shut up

[Anonymous No.23466223]

>>23466220
no

[Anonymous No.23466229]

>>23465332
>the TA has implications for the physical world
Yes, but not only the physical world. That's what makes it metaphysical/transcendental.

[Anonymous No.23466231]

>>23466229
>not only the physical world
ngmi

[Anonymous No.23466260]

>>23466229
the transcendental conditions for experience have to be abstracted from experience

[Anonymous No.23466264]

>>23466231
>>23466260
meds

[Anonymous No.23466279]

>>23466264
cope

[Anonymous No.23466300]

>>23464773
The line of a function can overlap all the points of a phenomena that is in reality composed of discrete units. The function describes the phenomena but that's not the same thing as saying the phenomena is exactly like the description.
Saying you can describe space with more accuracy is doing physics. Saying you know what space is is doing metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.23466309]

>>23466300
>The line of a function can overlap all the points of a phenomena that is in reality composed of discrete units
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. The idea that space is discrete is an extra hypothesis that adds nothing. I can reject the idea based on simple scientific method. It is definitely NOT a "metaphysical" hypothesis seeing as space is physical.

[Anonymous No.23466351]

>>23466309
>space is physical
Did you not read Kant?

[Anonymous No.23466357]

>>23466351
? first of all this is a different debate about "ether" which is a physical hypothesis. It's true that "space" as a pure intuition is never experienced but I am not a Kantian as I already pointed out that my position is that non euclidean geometry refutes kant >>23463445

[Anonymous No.23466384]

>>23466309
>The idea that space is discrete is an extra hypothesis that adds nothing.
It's an example based only on your demand that the real phenomena of space must be continuous. The point is not that space isn't continuous even though in fact modern physics says it isn't.
>I can reject the idea based on simple scientific method.
If you do you're not doing science. We work from the simpler model until a deviation that needs explaining presents itself. This way of doing it (physics) means the real phenomena will always be out of reach. We fit the line of the function to the phenomena like wrapping it in a mould to get a model. This inherently can't describe the thing itself only its impressions on the medium we provide. With a mathematical model we create functions that fit what they describe, nothing more. That gravity on earth can be described using a simple function doesn't say anything about what gravity actually is, the function just fits the phenomena well.

[Anonymous No.23466405]

>>23466384
You are adding a caveat to the scientific method that doesn't exist. The scientific method doesn't require that you always keep in mind that your model isn't "really" what happens. You simply have a hypothesis and you either reject or accept it. Putting the "but it could ACTUALLY be discrete!" doesn't accomplish anything. The idea that a scientific hypothesis probably doesn't describe what is REALLY there is ITSELF AN EXTRA HYPOTHESIS.
>With a mathematical model we create functions that fit what they describe, nothing more
The model is an abducted hypothesis that makes a positive claim about the data points you DIDN'T observe. the WHOLE POINT OF SCIENCE IS THAT THE MODEL TELLS US ABOUT THESE MISSING DATA POINTS AND THEREFORE THE MODEL IS "TRUE" AND WE ACCEPT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS "REALLY" WHAT IS GOING ON. YOUR DISTINCTION BETWEEN REALITY AND HYPOTHESIS ADDS NOTHING BECAUSE THE "REALITY" YOURE CREATING IS ITSELF JUST ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS. IF YOU WANTED TO SAY JUST THAT "THE HYPOTHESIS DOESNT DESCRIBE REALITY" THAT WOULD BE FINE BUT WHEN YOU ADD ON "BECAUSE REALITY COULD BE DISCRETE!!!" YOURE IMPLICITLY CONTRADICTING YOURSELF BY ASSUMING THAT THERE IS A HYPOTHESIS WHICH REPRESENTS REALITY. AND HENCE I AM JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THAT SPACE IS CONTINUOUS BECAUSE ACC TO YOU SUCH A THING AS "REAL SPACE" DOES EXIST AND COULD EITHER BE CONTINUOUS OR DISCRETE. THUS IM FREE TO USE OCCAM'S RAZOR TO SUPPOSE THAT IT REALLY IS CONTINUOUS.

[Anonymous No.23466416]

bravo lads great thread keep it going

[Anonymous No.23466428]

>>23466405
>The scientific method doesn't require that you always keep in mind that your model isn't "really" what happens.
It absolutely does. If you don't understand this and keep this at the absolute forefront of your mind you have no chance of advancing any understanding of anything. This IS the scientific method. The braindead horseshit you're describing is called religious dogma.
>You simply have a hypothesis and you either reject or accept it.
Dumbest creature that ever breathed.

[Anonymous No.23466429]

>>23466405
> SUCH A THING AS "REAL SPACE" DOES EXIST
Empirically real, transcendentally ideal. If you are referring to space as an objective mind-independent reality, the Kantian response is silence with respect to such a thing.

[Anonymous No.23466446]

>>23466429
He is the one talking about "real space" I'm only talking about it because he is you autist I myself am not a materialist I agree with Kant that all knowledge is representation I just don't agree that transcendental conditions can determine the nature of the physical world
>>23466428
You advance science when you have an observation that doesn't fit the model. If the model works then you accept it. This is how abduction works.

Let me explain to how belief works and what it actually means to accept a hypothesis. Let me make this clear. If this doesn't work to make you understand then I give up.

Suppose that I am making a bunch of observations about where things are in space. Now suppose I predict that something will be in a location where I've never observed anything before. I cannot reject my prediction simply because "space COULD be discrete and it could be impossible for something to be in that location." As long as my model tells me there is something there, and my model is continuous, all "accepting that it really is continuous" means is that I will not reject my prediction of something being in a location just because the location might not exist. Even if you say "space COULD be discrete" you still believe that it is continuous. So there is nothing problematic about me saying "space really is continuous" I'm just stating what you already believe anyway.

[Anonymous No.23466451]

>>23466446
>I just don't agree that transcendental conditions can determine the nature of the physical world
why not?

[Anonymous No.23466457]

>>23466451
Because mathematics has grown since Kant and it doesn't seem to respect any heretofore known limits of what can be cognized. It isn't just Euclidean geometry, even causality has already been done away with as we use probabilities and randomness to model events in statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. As Charles Peirce said we cannot appeal to the regularity of the universe to prove causality because the universe ISN'T regular at all, modern science doesn't even treat it as such. The evidence points to it being true that "anything that isn't a contradiction in terms can be conceived."

[Anonymous No.23466537]

>>23466457
> The evidence points to it being true that "anything that isn't a contradiction in terms can be conceived."
Kant completely agrees with this:

>We must therefore hold the principle of contradiction to be the universal and fully sufficient principle of all analytical cognition. But as a sufficient criterion of truth, it has no further utility or authority. For the fact that no cognition can be at variance with this principle without nullifying itself, constitutes this principle the sine qua non, but not the determining ground of the truth of our cognition

But Kant goes further and claims that anything that can be conceived must furthermore accord with the categories of pure intellect, and therefore the laws of pure logic are also the laws of nature, or physical reality. Consequently, all apparent absence of law in nature is only a temporary lapse in our understanding of reality, which will in time be corrected by recognition of further laws of nature.

[Anonymous No.23466615]

>>23466405
WHY ARE YOU YELLING?????

[Anonymous No.23466665]

>>23466615
Because I didn't feel like I would get through to him (I never get through to anyone on this board, usually nowadays I prefer to just be an asshole and end the conversation because I know that philosophical conversations don't go anywhere)
>>23466537
>which will in time be corrected by recognition of further laws of nature.
holding this as an axiom is just harmful for science because natural science already effectively uses randomness. Assuming causality is universal just biases you against hypotheses of randomness that may be correct. So the idea that everything has a cause is just an extra hypothesis that isn't even necessary, and even if it were true that everything has a cause, Kant is still refuted that we can't conceive of things not having a cause since mathematics has formalized randomness

[Anonymous No.23466712]

>>23459503
(You)

[Anonymous No.23466732]

>>23466665
>Assuming causality is universal just biases you against hypotheses of randomness that may be correct.
That's because causality is empirically real, but transcedentally ideal. For all rational beings, the hypothesis of randomness is never correct.

[Anonymous No.23466735]

>>23466732
yes.... youre just repeating kant to me and ignoring what i said.

[Anonymous No.23466751]

>>23466735
I read what you said. But transcendental idealism refutes randomness. If scientists believe in randomness they cannot defend it on an appeal to the supposed fact that randomness exists. That's a begging of the question of the entire point at issue here: is randomness a fact? According to you it is, according to me it isn't. But I have a metaphysical theory to back up my position and all you have is a mere assertion.

[Anonymous No.23466759]

>>23466751
yes, you probably actually think that the arguments in the analytic of principles are apodictic LMAO. Arguing with you is pointless. Obviously it is not "mere assertion" that randomness exists since some of the most successful scientific models in history use randomness, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.23466772]

>>23466759
>you probably actually think that the arguments in the analytic of principles are apodictic
yes

> As regards certitude, I have fully convinced myself that, in this sphere of thought, opinion is perfectly inadmissible, and that everything which bears the least semblance of an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions. For it is a necessary condition of every cognition that is to be established upon a priori grounds that it shall be held to be absolutely necessary; much more is this the case with an attempt to determine all pure a priori cognition, and to furnish the standard—and consequently an example-of all apodeictic (philosophical) certitude.
If they are wrong prove it to me.

[Anonymous No.23466774]

>>23466772
>If they are wrong prove it to me.
try reading literally one book that is critical of Kant's arguments. The main thing is Kant necessarily uses empirical premises from the beginning and hence NOTHING in the critique is apodictic.

[Anonymous No.23466775]

>>23463485
Yeah, this dude is referencing a ton of shit while saying very little about it.

[Anonymous No.23466778]

>>23459417
>patent clerk in the position to crib from Poincare & Heaviside
>has his uggo wife do the actual heavy math lifting

Both reify things - like space and gravity - which are as substantial as shadows are as compared to light.

[Anonymous No.23466787]

>>23466759
>most successful scientific models in history use randomness, but whatever.
empirical data is useless in a question of metaphysics. We are concerned with the ontological status of randomness and any assertion concerning that status requires more than empirical "evidence" gathered on the presupposition that causality is not necessary. You naively presuppose randomness is a possible component of human experience prior to a metaphysical theory to support that claim, and that possibility permits you to infer from appearances the supposed reality of randomness--, but without a metaphysical theory to back up your claim, you affirmation of the reality of randomness is just that: a mere metaphysical assertion, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.23466792]

>>23466787
my "assertion" is backed by the current scientific paradigm and yours is backed by Kant's "proof" of causality which as I already pointed out earlier in the thread doesn't make sense because it implies events we dont have an idea of the cause of can't be ordered in time. You are just too much of a midwit to detect the questionable premises in Kant's "proofs."

[Anonymous No.23466797]

>>23459644
>To say "something" could travel faster than light speed would disprove Special Relativity
Doesn't the initial expansion of the universe requires objects to move faster than the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.23466798]

>>23466787
>>23466792
and btw there literally is a metaphysical paradigm for randomness, google tychism

[Anonymous No.23466813]

>>23466792
>it implies events we dont have an idea of the cause of can't be ordered in time
read Kant again. he doesn't say that; he says that every event in time has a cause, regardless of whether we know its cause or not, and is only concerned with the universal principle of causality in human experience; efficient causes remain to be determined through empirical inquiry. It's ironic you call me the midwit while being filtered by Kant.

[Anonymous No.23466816]

>>23466813
is the argument for causality NOT that the mind requires a rule to order events in time? Just because Kant says his argument doesn't imply what it implies doesn't mean it doesn't imply it.

[Anonymous No.23466818]

>>23466798
ok now we are talking

[Anonymous No.23466831]

>>23466797
>>23459644
>>23460798
/lit/ retards are completely out of their element here. Just from these 3 posts I can tell no one in here even understands what general relativity actually is.

[Anonymous No.23466843]

>>23466816
>is the argument for causality NOT that the mind requires a rule to order events in time?
you have it backwards. a rule to order events in time is required for there to even be a mind.

[Anonymous No.23466851]

>>23466831
Dummy.

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/universe-expand-faster-light

[Anonymous No.23466872]

>>23466843
You are being pedantic but my point still stands

[Anonymous No.23466887]

>>23466872
>You are being pedantic
I'm not

>my point still stands
it doesn't

[Anonymous No.23466893]

>>23466887
Where does the rule exist when it isn't known?

[Anonymous No.23466927]

>>23466893
We must think of it as dormant a priori in the transcendental unconscious

[Anonymous No.23466946]

>>23466927
so you basically admit what I said is true lol.

[Anonymous No.23467007]

>>23466946
no I didn't

[Anonymous No.23467514]

good thread

[Anonymous No.23467530]

>>23459417
You need to formulate your problem better if you want good responses. What exactly made you wonder about this?

[Anonymous No.23467577]

>>23467530
In fairness to the OP there likely is no way to phrase this better. General relativity is a thorny issue for Kantians, it was technically seen as something that made Kant obsolete along with Newton for certain things. A Kantian can no longer rely on Kant's derivations about space, unless they are sticking to the older notion, which entails the advocate of General Relativity will almost certainly have the superior corpus to make reference to, at this point the argument will be less transcendental and more sollipsist in nature. The derivations involved in General Relativity entail spacetime and the experimental acumen of the theory have corroborated the theory. Due to what I suppose can be referred to as a 'convergence' of these or what I suppose could be more accurately referred to as the discovery of the interconnectedness of what were previously held to be separate and more universal notions then technically Kant's determination about time is still applicable, if the Kantian abandons space arguments and sticks to time then it is possible to continue inside Kantian bounds, although technically with an asterisk that now there is actually an empirical element to time intrinsically rather than one that was invented, otherwise the Kantian can no longer rely on Minkowski to make the connection. In extremely simple terms, this means that how people view time, more or less some thing in their head for making sense of past to future is still Kantian in the sense that it is seemingly something all people do but is still a 'sensuous intuition' as he referred to it, this was corroborated by some of the experimentation that corroborated General Relativity, it should also be noted at this point that by extension in order to maintain the logical consistency of the argument the Kantian must also accept space, gravity, and likely light as being sensuous intuitions as well, and will also have to accept that there is an inherently empirical aspect to them as well. The notion of transcendent logic will also have to contain an asterisk specifying for all humans in the same spacetime rather than a technical universal. If the Kantian leaves bounds on any of these then they will no longer possess access to the experimentally viable derivations.

[Anonymous No.23467597]

>>23467577
>it was technically seen as something that made Kant obsolete along with Newton for certain things
I think the kicker here is "for certain things". General relativity gives a better understanding of the universe than Newtonian mechanics, but they are still a fine approximation for most purposes, when we consider it practically, not philosophically. With Kant and GR, where is the immediate contradiction? I'm asking as someone who isn't very familiar with Kant, but I'm getting the impression that it's to do with Kant's views of space and time.

[Anonymous No.23467702]

>>23467597
If we are splitting hairs then technically Kant chose to depart from other prevailing notions of space and time in his day, and if we are splitting those already split hairs again Kant technically contradicted himself on space. The subsequent work that his followers did to reconcile him with Newton notwithstanding he was known for making 'or' operator determinations for what he referred to as sensations and intuitions. The notable exception to this was time, he chose to make an 'and' operator determination iirc, but I will profess that while I enjoyed reading Kant I am likely not the best person to represent his categorical system in the entirety. The nature of your inquiry is such that there is no way I can answer it to the effect that it will reconcile what you are asking, I am more or less limited to saying the following: yes, classical mechanics is still applicable to certain things, if that is where your understanding stops then you will fall under my previous post's comments regarding your attempt to argue against GR, and you will be forced into sollipsist arguments, the GR argument does not invalidate classical mechanics in the entirety but rather points out limitations and provides an experimentally valid view, in layman's terms this means that once the point of your sophistication has been reached you will no longer have any scientific acumen to draw on and the GR advocate will. Kant's comments on space while contradictory at times will leave a Kantian in the lurch if they wish to argue strict, and if they accept Newtonion reconciliations then they are subject to the same limitations an advocate of classical mechanics is limited to. If any Kantians here feel I have misrepresented this then they are certainly welcome to comment and provide further clarification. With this out of the way, I can say yes the reason GR has generally been thought of as being something that has made Kant obsolete does have to do with his views on space and time, although I suppose I have not actually considered the possibility of a sort of proportional validity spectrum but this also falls under my previous comments asterisk about transcendental logic and spacetime. There are technically valid updates to Kant that use the method I previously detailed, but strict method representations of Kant will likely not be able to keep up with GR, and in all frankness will likely be frustrating to both the Kantian and GR advocate. I suppose this is a sort of way of saying if you want to do strict Kant then you may just want to avoid GR entirely and be content with the limits Kant provided, otherwise in order to progress the Kantian will have to argue within the logically consistent framework provided previously in order to avoid stepping out of bounds on the fine distinction of sollipsism and Transcendental argumentation that Kant may have been and may still be the standard for.

[Anonymous No.23467733]

>>23462239
heidegger least deracinated denker since plato