Something out of nothing - Page 3

Oh, and as for infinity: I believe infinity is more a symptom of mental limitations, a kind of "curving of thought" as the external world seems to extend beyond our perception of three-dimensional space and linear time, two aspects of physical reality which, I believe, are not properties of the physical world but mere categories of thought and perception (Kant, as I'm sure you know). I try to illustrate this idea with what I call the "diagram of the infinities," a strange image that popped into my head many, many years ago...There are two boundaries of our perception of three-dimensional space--the infinitely large and the infinitely small--which I, being the mystic that I am, insist are actually two aspects of the same "world"---"As above, so below!" I imagine three-dimensional space, then, as a "circle." I do the same for linear time, and imagine the infinite past and the infinite future as two aspects of the same time--the Oroboros, the "snake biting its own tail." For me, "all is one, and one is all" and "past, present, and future are one." I know, I know, crazy but, what can I say, once a mystic always a mystic.

Wizard'sLogic, I've told you this before: Kant did NOT say that space and time are 'mere' categories of the mind! Read Critique of Pure Reason again!

Heyjme, I agree with your suggestion that revolutions in science come, by and and large, on the back of the kind of creativity which is not congenital to barren empiricism. Let me ask you this, then: could science survive without reference to sense-experience? In short, does the model of the human mind collecting informatation from the outside world, and the figuring forth of an unimpeachable duality thereof, actually help the progress of science - or is it the dogma of feeble intellects, to be disposed of when it can?

This is from the Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It pretty much says what I have always been taught about what Kant's views on space and time were...I've found numerous scholarly works on the subjects that pretty much say the same thing...Why do you keep insisting it's not so?..I'm confused.

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5

5 Space, time and transcendental idealism
The first part of the Critique, the 'Transcendental Aesthetic', has two objectives: to show that we have synthetic a priori knowledge of the spatial and temporal forms of outer and inner experience, grounded in our own pure intuitions of space and time; and to argue that transcendental idealism, the theory that spatiality and temporality are only forms in which objects appear to us and not properties of objects as they are in themselves, is the necessary condition for this a priori knowledge of space and time (see Space; Time ).

Much of the section refines arguments from the inaugural dissertation of 1770. First, in what the second edition labels the 'Metaphysical Exposition', Kant argues that space and time are both pure forms of intuition and pure intuitions. They are pure forms of intuition because they must precede and structure all experience of individual outer objects and inner states; Kant tries to prove this by arguing that our conceptions of space and time cannot be derived from experience of objects, because any such experience presupposes the individuation of objects in space and/or time, and that although we can represent space or time as devoid of objects, we cannot represent any objects without representing space and/or time ( A 23-4/B 38-9; A 30-1/B 46). They are pure intuitions because they represent single individuals rather than classes of things; Kant tries to prove this by arguing that particular spaces and times are always represented by introducing boundaries into a single, unlimited space or time, rather than the latter being composed out of the former as parts, and that space and time do not have an indefinite number of instances, like general concepts, but an infinite number of possible parts (A 24/B 39-40; A 31-2/B 47-8 ).

As for your questions...Let me think about them for awhile...I'm busy doing something at the moment...Sorry.

"In his book "In the Wilderness of Thinking: Kant's 'Sign of History'" Peter Gilgen explains that according to Kant, our perceptual blockade is deeper than what science can reveal. Even time and space are categories our perception apparatus bring into this world."

Just another comment from another source.

Oh, well...Just trying to explain to you that this view is not my own...And, by the way, I have read Kant's famous work.

Could science survive without reference to sense-experience?

Well, you need to ask someone deprived of sense experience. Scientific thought can exist within a mind independent of sense experience. However, that thought must be refined, I feel, by reference to sense experience-and indeed needs to be for communication. I think sense experience is valid in science, but it doesn't really get anywhere in terms of unravelling truth, it just helps to solve problems of our time, which indirectly helps-unless someone's senses are more powerful.

wittgensteins, As a side note; the word revolution comes form
the Copernican revolution, which he meant to mean revolution of heavenly bodies. However, since Gallileo tried his upmost to validate this theory via the Vatican, the word revolution now means a major change. Also, could you ask questions in language more akin to the 21st century-or at least the 20th century?

wizardslogic, I see the point your making. And I agree that mysticism is an inherent property of a mind that gets anywhere. I also see that science without this sense for feeling more would look like an out of date prune. The point where I digress, though, is that there must be tests upon the exploring mind to establish the proportion of truth in it. This is, if you like, the court of science. And, just like lawyers do not make up a court of law, it is a continuous pulse.

Imagine a man on a raft on the crest of a tidal wave. Before him is what is established. In front of him are undiscovered fathoms of new things to be found. The child of this man will want to find out these new things, and this is his mystical fascination. The educated man, however, will marry this child-like fascination, the mystic if you like, to the precision of scientific language and tests. It is this partnership, precisely, this partnership that will enable us to go further. The mystic without the rationality of thought, however, is as useful as running around a forest all day thinking how dark it is without realising the forest.

It is indeed true that Kant argued that space and time are categories of subjectivity. What I dissent from is your assertion that they are for that reason “illusion” or mere simulacra. Concepts are fitted to the mind, rather than the mind to concepts â€' meaning we can have a priori knowledge of things in the outside world. What I mean is that the mind does not begin tabula rasa, but has the conditions of existence written into it from the start. The Transcendental Unity of Apperception describes the conditions of subjectivity, in which everything is as it seems and everything seems as it is. We have “intuitions” by which the manifold of sensory influx (what you rightly label as infinite) is reduced to unity in the self-conscious mind. This unity must correlate with the phenomenal world: thus, we have “objective” knowledge. (Think of it in terms of a microcosm and a macrocosm: the unity of the microcosm must correlate with the macrocsom). This is the Transcendental Deduction. Of course, this is only a minimal conception of objectivity. Every act of cognition must reduce the infinite sense-experience to a composite part, ie, it must simplify the phenomena around us. Thus, our world is a “representation” of the noumenal word. The world around us, because it exists “for” us, is inextricably tinctured with the conditions of subjectivity â€' so that perception is muddied at the source. The upshot of this? That subjectivity can never be peeled away to reveal the “thing-in-itself”.
I'm in a hurry, so you'll be able to impute to me the dual vices of compression and poor style. Nevertheless, I feel that I've come up with a decisive rejoinder to your assertion. Space and time actually exist for Kant: the mistake, he says, is to view the spatio-temporal realm as if it comprises the whole of existence (leading to his antinomies, as I'm sure you know).

Heyjme: yes, all very perfunctory, but “creativity” as you call it is still a very mysterious entity. My view is that all real thought tramples underfoot the easy assumptions of everyday life. Einstein, for example, asked whether a falling person would be able to tell whether he was falling without frames of reference to measure his fall by, tore asunder the idle suppositions and platitudes of classical physics, and duly founded a new scientific enterprise. Other examples abound. It seems to me this conception can secure the unity of science and philosophy. What I am really doing is challenging your view that science is at the apex of thought.

You guys should be writers...Your thinking is almost poetic...I like reading your thoughts...

And, heyjme1, I agree with you that a mystic without reason is entirely lost. Most of my thinking, I believe, relies on a system of logic that starts by assuming I know nothing beyond the existence of the external world and my own internal self. Anything beyond that is supposition, including anything I perceive via the senses, the data of which may actually be “transformed” by these subjective conditions. All I ever say is that the form of the world and my temporal experience of it may be determined by some subjective factors not predicated by conditions inherent in the external world. That's all. I simply say it's quite possible that three-dimensional space and linear time may be functions of some subjective, internal conditionings, and that the external world may exist without these conditions. That's the mystic in me talking now. My investigation into this possibility lead me to examine my perceptions and conceptions of three-dimensional space and linear time as it relates to infinity, and I realized that infinity is problem that arises because of three-dimensional space and linear time and is completely bound to it. Moreover, the contradictions and confusions related to this incomprehensible concept of infinity seemed to me as evidence that three-dimensional space and linear time might be subjective categories of thought and perception since reason told me that a true understanding and explanation of the external world were unattainable when viewing the external world in these terms. The external world seems to extend far beyond three-dimensional space and linear time. That's pretty much my train of thought here. I'm sure you won't agree, and that's fine. I just felt it necessary to explain how these crazy thoughts of mine became what they are. But I do agree with you that science is the best way for us to examine the external world, despite these conditions. And it goes to the farthest reaches of human understanding of truth possible under these conditions. Without science I probably would never have even come close to the way I think now. I just think that science cannot go much farther because it would then be crossing certain scientific boundaries beyond which physical science may not pass in order to remain a science. Oh, well.

quote:

---

because we have satellites looking at the earth?why do we have sattelites? because some took steps to understanding nature and then used all these ideas and though hey why don't we go into space?

---

Minor point about the validity of this stated position.
Long before they had satellites, the weather conditions had been compiling (recording) information about weather & the factors that contribyte to it. The sattelites (the space program) was produced because of the cold war, spying on foreign nations troops, industrial growth, etc & of course the weather as a logistical factor related to the military aspect.
Look at how greatly our lives have changed because of war, Eveen the industrial revolution was promoted by the need to modernize armament such as tanks & ships => planes & rockets. I noted that the tin can came from the need to feed the french army. Srange isn't it, how these things which so enrich our lives came from the desire to kill (war) rather than our desire or ability to enrich life?
the point being that although science likes to see itself as being empirical sense of seeking truth or understanding, its greatest advances are not for knowledge or man's advancement but rather the pursuit of war. Note where the advent of the Nobel prize arose from the advent of explosive primarily used in warfare.

A good minor point wayback. Its not so minor. I would probably say most major inventions were spurred on by war; but I wouldn't say major understandings or discoveries were brought on by war. To defend my point, I was really seperating the distinction between finding a law in nature, or unravelling something of nature, with that of using these laws or discoveries for inventions. Look at the history of the computer for instance.

More importantly right now:

You mention Nobel, wayback. He didnt take account of mathematics probably because its not something that advances society. Its interesting to me then, when considering history, that actually, to advance society in some way implicitly requires war. Certainly something for the pacifists to consider, maybe even the communists...