Kant

[Veritas Aequitas]

It would be idiotic to claim they are not the same.
They are not the same empirically [phenomenon] and as thing-in-itself [noumenon]

So they are basically not the same.

You missed my point.

There are 3 perspectives to the table;

• 1. The image of the table in the brain/mind -
  2. The physical table out there - the table one see or take a picture of
  3. The table-in-itself out there - unknowable

They above are in different perspectives, but surely whatever is the table will have the same constitution and qualities.
Assuming everything is normal.
If the table in 2 in confirmed by all observers as having 4 legs then, the table as image in your mind and the table-in-itself [not known can think of] must have 4 legs.
It cannot be one of the table has 3 legs.

Therefore if you believe there is a table-in-itself [3] as real logically all the table i.e. 1, 2 and 3 must be exactly the same. Assuming everything is normal.

But the point is if you believe in a thing-in-itself as real but unknowable, it may be apparently be convincing for large objects like table and chairs but its falsity will be exposed with micro-objects like atoms, grains of sand in a river, dusts and micro-objects.

but their supposed constitution and qualities has to be the same.

If your brain is working properly, you can make the same abstractions about both, in the right context. But it's also possible to observe a 4-legged-table-appearance, even though the real-thing-in-itself-table has 3 legs (or is actually cat, or maybe there is nothing at all).

Note I assume everything is normal and no illusions are involved between 1, 2 and 3.

And obviously the human eye can't directly see individual H2O molecules, so there is no way to individually represent them in the head. We need the aid of instruments for that.

There are 7+ billion humans on Earth, at present, can you represent them in your head.
That is not an issue with molecules, we can use an electron microscope to count them and represent them as numbers in the brain/mind.

My point is there is no such thing as thing-in-itself out there [unknowable] existing independent of human condition.
When anyone think of a thing-in-itself, it is at best an illusion.

[Skepdick]

They above are in different perspectives, but surely whatever is the table will have the same constitution and qualities.

This is not a complete sentence. The same constitution and qualities as what?

Assuming everything is normal.

You don't know what the word "normal" means.

Note I assume everything is normal and no illusions are involved between 1, 2 and 3.

Absence of evidence for an illusion is not evidence of absence of an illusion.

[Atla]

...

Never mind, we are just forever talking past each other and it can't be fixed.

[Skepdick]

There are 7+ billion humans on Earth, at present, can you represent them in your head.
That is not an issue with molecules, we can use an electron microscope to count them and represent them as numbers in the brain/mind.

Before you can count "them" (whatever "they" are) first you need to be able to recognise "them" for what "they" are.

Look out of your window and tell me how many grobmunfs you can count?

Because you are equivocating the notion of "sameness" you count H20 as a molecule (water), but you also count O2 as a molecule (oxygen).
You are treating two different things AS IF they are the same. You could call that an "illusion" but you are CHOOSING to be deceived.

You are CHOOSING to ignore the differences and focus on the similarities. This choice is called abstraction.

[Skepdick]

That is because you end up having to meld mysticism and reason together and we are left with Eastern philosophy (daoism, buddhism, hinduism) where "void" is an actual premise.

This is just your interpretation. The fact is I have worked my way up to this position entirely from what you might call "western" philosophy. But even that would be a lie. I have worked my way up to this position from the metaphysic colloquially referred to as "science".

I was an applied scientist long before I read any philosophy.

I recognize the parallels to Eastern philosophy, but on the road travelled I was never influenced by Eastern philosophy. I merely arrived at the same conclusions.

Dao. Truth. Enlightenment. God. Non-dualism. Monism. It's all the same idea.

Western philosophy, in its continual pursuit of "reason", has failed to acknowledge that its grounding are empty assumptions.

Well, you fail to observe the origin of language. The thing that generates language. The thing that generates those things you call "assumptions".

Is the "self" empty? Only if you have low self-esteem.

[Sculptor]

You have the most quirky and inaccurate idea about Kant.
You reduce him to a parlour game and have no historical context, nor clear understanding of him.

Is the above, the best you can do?
As usual the above are merely opinions.
Show me references from Kant to justify your points?

I have already laid down 100% of the contents of the CPR above, thus ready to deal with every point therein, including any historical element.

Btw, there is no question raised on the historical context.
Kant's personal philosophical history was, he was a dogmatic rationalist until he was woken from his dogmatic slumber by Hume's empiricism [also dogmatic]. He went on to take the Middle road which was his Copernican Revolution, i.e.

• Hitherto [philosophical realism up to Kant] it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
  But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
  
  We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.
  This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.
  
  We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
  Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. (B xvi)
  
  A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
  (B xvii)

The above Copernican Revolution can be traced back to Protagoras, Heraclitus et al versus Parmides et. al.

Since you think you are so smart, what have you to show?

His "Copernican turn" is not literally about cosmology FFS, so a reference to Heraclitus is not relevant. This sums up your failure to grasp the rudiments of his epistemology.
Your take on Kant is superficial. It's pointless bandying words with you.

[Sculptor]

He was not talking about categories, but sub disciplines of science you moron.

Was he now? I've heard of no scientific discipline that concerns itself with breaking down glasses of wine.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts

So instead of admitting your error you doubled-down on it. Precisely what I need you to do so I can make an even bigger fool of you.

Even if we interpret Feynman the way you insist he ought to be interpreted, "discipline" and "category" mean exactly the same thing! So much so that the two words can be used interchangeably without altering the meaning of a sentence.

Cosmology is a category of science.
Cosmology is a discipline of science.

Synonyms. Have you heard of them?

Oh yeah how fucking stupid of me, I should have known there is no difference between physics and biology. What a moron.

Gibberish.

[Skepdick]

Oh yeah how fucking stupid of me, I should have known there is no difference between physics and biology. What a moron.

Gibberish.

If you believe in abiogenesis the there is no difference between physics and biology.

QFT -> Quantum chemistry -> Abioginesis -> Quantum biology

If you are some kind of a whackjob who denies evolution, then sure - it's gibberish.

At least you recognise your own stupidity. There's still hope for you - the actual moron in this debate.

[uwot]

Lol. It seems to me you didn't finish that sentence? I think what you were trying to say was "That is not what falsifiability means TO ME."

Well, me and Karl Popper.

I guess I have an idea how to test this empirically. Would you say that General Relativity falsified Newton's law of universal gravitation?

No.

Irrespective of the label you choose, do we have agreement on this? Ontology is bullshit.

Again, no. Ontology is all about creating conceptual models. It's just another tool.

[Skepdick]

Well, me and Karl Popper.

Which is precisely why I linked you to an article called Popper as a particular case to Bayesian probability theory

And this is incredibly important, because statistical mechanics (and therefore statistical falsifiability) correspond to Information Theory.

I guess I have an idea how to test this empirically. Would you say that General Relativity falsified Newton's law of universal gravitation?

No.

So if you are not talking about falsification in the statistical sense, then which sense (that I apparently "don't understand") are you using it in?

Again, no. Ontology is all about creating conceptual models. It's just another tool.

Weird. A constructivist would say that's what epistemology is all about. Almost as if 'ontology' is a useless word to an epistemologist.

It was from an epistemic view-point that I uttered both of these things:

* As any anti-foundationalist would argue, all ontological claims not REALLY ontological. It's just what we SAY about them, but if we were to be honest about it - we don't have One True Ontology. We have a bunch of ontologies at various levels of abstraction.
* When an intuitionist makes a deduction, introducing and discharging a hypothesis, he implicitly reifies a hypothetical situation, projecting it onto an abstract ontology.

[Sculptor]

Oh yeah how fucking stupid of me, I should have known there is no difference between physics and biology. What a moron.

Gibberish.

If you believe in abiogenesis the there is no difference between physics and biology.

QFT -> Quantum chemistry -> Abioginesis -> Quantum biology

If you are some kind of a whackjob who denies evolution, then sure - it's gibberish.

At least you recognise your own stupidity. There's still hope for you - the actual moron in this debate.

Since you deny the value of categories you can't establish the difference between a Whackjob and evolution.
Now I know why you are called Skep DICK.

[Skepdick]

Since you deny the value of categories you can't establish the difference between a Whackjob and evolution.

I didn't deny the VALUE of categories. I rejected the ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE of categories.

But why do you insist on this strawman? Is it because you are losing the argument and you are trying to save face?

Categories are valuable.
Categories cause errors.

These two are NOT mutually exclusive statements. in fact - you can read all about it here: Type I and Type II errors.

Much of statistical theory revolves around the minimization of one or both of these errors, though the complete elimination of either is treated as a statistical impossibility.

Now I know why you are called Skep DICK.

Look at you! So observant!

Did I hurt your feelings? Shem. At least you will learn something.

[Sculptor]

Since you deny the value of categories you can't establish the difference between a Whackjob and evolution.

I didn't deny the VALUE of categories. I rejected the ONTOLOGICAL EXISTENCE of categories.

HAHA.
Even worse, categories have no existence whatever. You are a joke. Kant had two basic categories; time and space. You obviously don't know where the f u c k you are nor when the f u c k you are. You are as confused as you seem.

[Skepdick]

HAHA.
Even worse, categories have no existence whatever. You are a joke. Kant had two basic categories; time and space. You obviously don't know where the f u c k you are nor when the f u c k you are. You are as confused as you seem.

I am so "confused", I keep pointing out your ignorance. You sure are making good use of Cunningham's law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

[seeds]

What I merely extended and added from Kant's Philosophy is 'God is an impossibility to be real' based on Kant's view, there is no way one can prove God existence.

You can't 'merely' add that. Not being able to prove God's existence doesn't make God impossible to be real.

Precisely!
_______