The QM example is not accessible at all, except to a handful of scientists. Whereas my example is not simply an analogy in any sense. It is a direct and practical example that clearly demonstrates the limits of our experience.seeds wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:51 amLike I said, the more analogies the better, and for someone else, your particular analogy might resonate better (be more mentally accessible) than my analogy.
However, if for the sake of some friendly philosophical banter you would like to do a comparison, then let’s take a deeper look at what you said about the mug:
In my opinion, in order for us to understand what the word “noumenon” truly means...
(or, at least, what it “seems” to mean)
...then we must recognize that there is a huge difference between a situation where information is merely hidden from our senses (as in the case of your mug),...
...and that of a situation in which information is literally inaccessible to our senses (as in the case of what’s taking place in the space between the slitted wall and that of the screen of the Double Slit Experiment).
With that in mind, please describe how the hidden information to which you are referring in your description of the mug, is literally inaccessible to our senses.
In other words, tell us why under no circumstances could we ever directly experience with our senses (or some scientifically devised extension of our senses), the hidden features of the mug, as per your description.
Kant did not have the slightest clues about QM, and the world of science is still scratching its head over the phenomenon.
Kant is perfectly okay about investigations and experience pushing back the boundary lines between the phenomenal world and the noumenal.
The noumenal is not a hard and fast "thou shall not pass" sort of place.
But you ask me "... please describe how the hidden information to which you are referring in your description of the mug, is literally inaccessible to our senses."
Do you really want me to describe, what is impossible to describe?
Placing Kant in his historical trajectory is the only sure way to unpack his meaning. He explicitly said of Hume, that he had awoken him from his philosophical slumbers. Kant was the pinnacle of the Empiricists, and with his epistemology seeks to reconcile rationalism and empiricism.
I just don't think QM is the naturally applicable point of consideration.