Kant and the Thing in Itself

[Wyman]

Here's an excerpt from a Philosophy Now article about Kant, to help Hexhammer out:

Appearances in Kantian language are called ‘Phenomena' and ‘things-in-themselves,' are called ‘Noumena'.

To support his theory, Kant gave several arguments. The fourth is based on the admitted validity of Geometry which forms the bedrock for his proof of the properties of space.

This can be inferred from his statement that: “The apodeictic certainty of all geometrical propositions and the possibility of their a priori construction is grounded in this a priori necessity of space.” (B/39), and: “Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space synthetically, and yet a priori,”(B/40).

The Trouble with Geometry

Kant's view of space (and time) is the groundwork of his Critique, However the inseparable bond he claimed between geometry and the nature of space serves to undermine his case rather than support it. The following arguments question the validity of Kant's linkage between geometry and space; I will try to show that it is inconsistent with his assertions about space.

When Kant refers to geometry, he must mean Euclidean geometry, since Non-Euclidean geometry, the brainchild of the 19th Century, was unknown to him. Hence space, in Kant's philosophical system must conform to Euclidean geometry. Norman Kemp Smith, in his Commentary on the Critique, remarked that for Kant “…space in order to be space at all, must be Euclidean.”

I think that Einstein's representation of space and time in non-Euclidean terms does damage to Kant's foundations.

[Blaggard]

Depends all the mathematics in non euclidian geometry has the same foundation as euclidean geometry and in fact all the algebra all the trigonometry in all its substitutions (in calculus and basic trigonometry) are exactly the same for example in euclidean geometry:



All these equivalents are the same if your replace sin with hsin the hyperbolic sin, and esin eliptic geometry in fact the whole of trigonometry every substitution every basic formula you can pretty much substitute eliptic sin and hyperbolic cos in non-Euclidean geometry for sin and cos in euclidean geometry all the rules of maths remain intact, all that changes is the angles and they all remain in the same euclidean relation they just alter about a perfect triangle having greater than 180o as a relation to pi or less, you move one angle to be greater than it can be the others bend accordingly thusly to be in relation as euclidean geometry is limited so is non-euclidean geometry in the same way but with more ability to pass beyond a fundamental flat space.

It's all classical it's all the same. Einstein would have argued that what Kant said is exactly what he said had he known about non Euclidean geometry. Where Einstein in fact differed was in saying that any maths could have a non linear relation, ie that the line could be broken or have unknowns along its surface, this was what quantum mechanics was saying and this is what Einstein took issue with, probability follows no set line, it can break smoothness it can break symmetry and it can utterly devoid a classical theory of any mathematical symbolism at all it is not real any more it is subject only to an after thought, it cannot be derived only induced from the result. Someone like Einstein would of loved Kant and in fact read his work in his teens, but hated Bhor et al who read his work in his sleep.

Had Kant in fact known about non-euclidean he would have rejoiced (or would he that's perhaps the point how the hell do I know), but because it did nothing at all to change maths other than to make curvature in space consistent withing science I doubt he would have been that bothered, but then how the hell do I know. I am sure these people understand the maths of non euclidean and euclidean geometry, but taking a thing that did not happen with a maths system that would not change anything about maths fundamentally and claiming Kant in the past would of been at a loss, seems like horse shit, to anyone who fundamentally understands geometry in curved and flat space. It's an assumption, it would not fly I think. Kant hates curved space? Kant hates Einstein, Kant is wrong: yes, about all you can say, but the guy hasn't got a chance to respond, what are you playing at?

It's like saying Kant would of been a firm believer in modernism, but hated post modernism, as well he might? How the hell do you know?



There's a variable there, but it is all in relation to pi, it thus only is a differing variable that changes nothing but a slight detail in the surface you partake of, it's not novel and it's not new, it's what happens on the surface of a globe. It's just plain classical maths, and nothing to see here that is beyond it.

Suffice to say had Kant known that space was in fact not necessarily flat then you could make a comment, since everyone assumed it was, you're just having a dalliance in conjecture for the sake of it. It's a nice idea but I doubt Kant can be used in this circular reasoning.

Kant knows x, hence but does not know y hence kant was wrong. It's like saying Newton was wrong...

Meh you get the point we know what we know, formulating conjecture on something beyond what someone knew is a waste of our time. Neither Einstein nor Kant would of been damaged by their maths either way. It's just a new way of looking at an old idea not a paradigm shift.

If you remotely understood any of this, let me posit a physics question: how would you know the universe was a flat sheet or we were in a saddle universe or on a sphere?

Einstein could have said a gravitational effect does not need to bend space all it needs to do is place proportional changes over differences in energy to motion, it might just make it harder to pass through space, it need not be a spacial incline of decline just an energy increase or decrease which "drags" on a system differently. How would you know the difference?

[Wyman]

I think it depends on whether the universe is expanding or collapsing or static.

[Blaggard]

Not really, and it is expanding faster and faster over time according to all current experiment, and that in itself is a subject of great angst. Spacial concerns that increase stay static or decrease are irrelevant to fundamental maths, but I have no time to explain why.

[Wyman]

I call BS, Blaggard. If there is sufficient density in the universe and it is therefore collapsing, then the curvature would be elliptic. If there is enough energy and it is therefore expanding, then the curvature would be hyperbolic. If static, the curvature would be flat. That is what you were asking.

I also took some non-Euclidean geometry as an undergraduate. It was 25 years ago and I don't remember a damn thing, but I remember enough to know that it wasn't easy nor like Euclidean geometry, which I also studied. Gauss, Lobachevsky et al and the years it took for them to work it out can attest to that. Also, the years it took Einstein and Hilbert to work out applying it to general relativity. Excuse me if I think your claim that it all boils down to the same (simple) thing is hooey.

[HexHammer]

That's why many go to philosophers like Kant and others - so they can see deeper meaning in life.

Such as?

My best bet is delusional crap, just like many people turn to religion for imaginary answers, but please prove me wrong!

[Blaggard]

I call BS, Blaggard. If there is sufficient density in the universe and it is therefore collapsing, then the curvature would be elliptic. If there is enough energy and it is therefore expanding, then the curvature would be hyperbolic. If static, the curvature would be flat. That is what you were asking.

I also took some non-Euclidean geometry as an undergraduate. It was 25 years ago and I don't remember a damn thing, but I remember enough to know that it wasn't easy nor like Euclidean geometry, which I also studied. Gauss, Lobachevsky et al and the years it took for them to work it out can attest to that. Also, the years it took Einstein and Hilbert to work out applying it to general relativity. Excuse me if I think your claim that it all boils down to the same (simple) thing is hooey.

Christ I'm going to bed, people have to sleep dude stop making up straw men, and for a start learn something about maths and physics the universe is collapsing it must be x or y you clearly don't understand the maths or the physics and I don't have time for this shit. I'll deal with it tomorrow feel free to make up some more odd shiz in my absence. Anon.

You know nothing about euclidean and non euclidean geometry and yet you hope to make an argument. Sincerely is that it? Learn the subject again, go back to school, don't waste my time, if you couldn't understand what I said in the thread above about how it actually works, enough to challenge it you are wasting my time and yours. It must be hooey yeah it must eh, in what way in what actual way was any of that post about geometry hoeey? Let's get to that, and then when you have we have room to talk.

A ball runs up a hill it slows down, a ball runs down a hill it speeds up, a particle runs through a more dense medium energy wise it slows down, it encounters a less dense medium energy wise it might speed up let's call it a photon. How do you know it's the incline or the energy/mass density gradient? Peace out dude. Answer the questions posed, don't mouth off at me it just bores me.

[HexHammer]

I call BS, Blaggard. If there is sufficient density in the universe and it is therefore collapsing, then the curvature would be elliptic. If there is enough energy and it is therefore expanding, then the curvature would be hyperbolic. If static, the curvature would be flat. That is what you were asking.

Uhmmm, I believe that our universe is shaped like a smoke plume, where some points are expanding, others contracting/collapsing.

What fancy word are there for such universe?

[Wyman]

You asked this:

If you remotely understood any of this, let me posit a physics question: how would you know the universe was a flat sheet or we were in a saddle universe or on a sphere?

I answered. You said you were going to bed. I didn't make anything up.

I am not saying that physics is hooey. But to say that its all very easy, that non-Euclidean and Euclidean geometry are really the same mathematically and that it would have fit right in with Kant's ideas - that is hooey, in my opinion. You often have very un-hooey opinions - I'm just saying this one is hooey.

[Wyman]

Here is a snippet from Space magazine:

If the actual density of the universe is less than the critical density, then there is not enough matter to stop the expansion of the universe, and it will expand forever. The resulting shape is curved like the surface of a saddle. This is known as an open universe.

The shape of the universe
Pin It The shape of the universe depends on its density. If the density is more than the critical density, the universe is closed and curves like a sphere; if less, it will curve like a saddle. But if the actual density of the universe is equal to the critical density, as scientists think it is, then it will extend forever like a flat piece of paper.
Credit: NASA/WMAP Science team.View full size image
If the actual density of the universe is greater than the critical density, then it contains enough mass to eventually stop its expansion. In this case, the universe is closed and finite, though it has no end, and has a spherical shape. Once the universe stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Galaxies will stop receding and start moving closer and closer together. Eventually, the universe will undergo the opposite of the Big Bang, often called the "Big Crunch." This is known as a closed universe. [Images: Peering Back to the Big Bang & Early Universe]

However, if the universe contains exactly enough mass to eventually stop the expansion, the actual density of the universe will equal the critical density. The expansion rate will slow down gradually, over an infinite amount of time. In such a case, the universe is considered flat and infinite in size.

All I did was answer your question, Blaggard. I didn't make anything up.

[Blaggard]

Ok brushed my teeth put on my Brer Rabbit onsey and now have a cup of hot chocolate.

The question was regardless how would you know the shape of the universe, if it were expanding, contracting or uniform in what form or system of maths would you know it was any shape at all. People can say it would be spherical and they can say it would be flat, but the point was to make you realise that there is no way within any physical system to know that, it's based on hypothesis, the maths or the science wont tell you that. Get me a Scientist here, and I will argue the point. But then you can't really do that and they'd just agree with me, it isn't that easy.

In the same way the maths or the science wont tell you if space is curved or space is an energy density concern which needs no curvature. I know it's all just beyond the syllabus you learn in school, college and even somewhat in university, but then that's why you go to university to learn why these ideas are just meaningless in terms of maths or science, they tell you how to think about why what they say is an idea not a theory, and in doing so you leave and you may or may not actually make theories.

Say what you like no system of maths changes no curvature concerns would change the geometry- that is consistent, and not one scientist could ever prove that any shape is the case. It's because maths remains consistent in any geometry be it euclidean or non euclidean, saying it adopts a shape is like saying you can stand outside of the universe and see it, it might but let me put it this way could you know if the Earth was a sphere simply by standing on it or walking around it, sure you wont fall off the edges, but it's not a sphere it never was, how would you determine it's shape without some other means? Ask yourself how we finally found out the Earth was an oblate spheroid not a sphere? The analogy is pertinent.

This pop science junk is annoying. In the same way pop philosophy is annoying when it claims Kant was wrong, the maths is unknowable eternally within its own frame of reference, it becomes annoying when people make claims about curvature they can't possibly know. I know I know you answered in good faith. But like most people who just take pop anything at face value you really have no idea, it's deeper than that and the whole idea you can change the basics by opinion is what is making both science and philosophy dumbed down for the masses. We can take it, we know enough, let's take it a little further than our coffee table, or are you just going to patronise us some more?

You don't need to make anything up, actually saying we don't actually know and we can't know without a priori assumptions, is not a big seller in the popular magazines. Possibly where philosophy has an ingress back in the game, possibly not if it keeps making silly conjectures based on bad ideas, and irretrievable claims.

Two aspects of shape
The local geometry of the universe is determined by whether the density parameter Ω is greater than, less than, or equal to 1.
From top to bottom: a spherical universe with Ω > 1, a hyperbolic universe with Ω < 1, and a flat universe with Ω = 1. Note that these depictions of two-dimensional surfaces are merely easily visualizable analogs to the 3-dimensional structure of (local) space.
See also: Distance measures (cosmology)

Describing the shape of the universe requires a consideration of two aspects:

its local geometry, which mostly concerns the curvature of the universe, particularly the observable universe, and
its global geometry, which concerns the topology of the universe as a whole.

If the observable universe encompasses the entire universe, we may be able to determine the global structure of the entire universe by observation. However, if the observable universe is smaller than the entire universe, our observations will be limited to only a part of the whole, and we may not be able to determine its global geometry through measurement. It is possible to construct different mathematical models of the global geometry of the entire universe all of which are consistent with current observational data. For example, the observable universe may be many orders of magnitude smaller than the entire universe. The universe may be small in some dimensions and not in others (analogous to the way a cylinder is longer in the dimension of length than it is in the dimensions of width and depth). To test whether a given mathematical model describes the universe accurately, scientists look for the model's novel implications—what are some phenomena in the universe that we have not yet observed, but that must exist if the model is correct—and they devise experiments to test whether those phenomena occur or not. For example, if the universe is a small closed loop, one would expect to see multiple images of an object in the sky, although not necessarily images of the same age.

Cosmologists normally work with a given space-like slice of spacetime called the comoving coordinates, the existence of a preferred set of which is possible and widely accepted in present-day physical cosmology. The section of spacetime that can be observed is the backward light cone (all points within the cosmic light horizon, given time to reach a given observer), while the related term Hubble volume can be used to describe either the past light cone or comoving space up to the surface of last scattering. To speak of "the shape of the universe (at a point in time)" is ontologically naive from the point of view of special relativity alone: due to the relativity of simultaneity we cannot speak of different points in space as being "at the same point in time" nor, therefore, of "the shape of the universe at a point in time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Sometimes wiki has it right, sometimes you can't know something and sometimes you can, wiki knows it "all". It doesn't have it right though. But then it is a non profit organisation, it wouldn't care much about saying, shit I don't know and nor can anyone, so it just says exactly what can be known and exactly so.

It's a good job I don't have work in the morning is all I can say, Brer Bear would eat you alive.

[Wyman]

The question was regardless how would you know the shape of the universe, if it were expanding, contracting or uniform in what form or system of maths would you know it was any shape at all.

That wasn't really the question. You don't always speak clearly. You presume everyone is ignorant, so why bother being clear; hence no one will understand you regardless of how ignorant they may be.

People can say it would be spherical and they can say it would be flat, but the point was to make you realise that there is no way within any physical system to know that, it's based on hypothesis, the maths or the science wont tell you that.

I completely understand this and never said otherwise. Observation will guide you as to which hypothesis you choose and then which model will be applied, always subject to further modification.

Then you blather on about how I could never understand anyway and if only you had a scientist here, but they would only agree with you - you can't see how incredibly pompous and patronizing that is? Do you often wonder why you rub people the wrong way?

Say what you like no system of maths changes no curvature concerns would change the geometry-

This and what follows in the paragraph is also very badly written although I think I get the gist. Who ever said the mathematics changes the geometry of the universe - I never said that.

it becomes annoying when people make claims about curvature they can't possibly know.

I didn't make claims about curvature. You didn't ask for a paper on general relativity, you asked a specific question. I answered very quickly with a very short reply. I correlated the three models with the three hypotheses that I supposed would support each model. Maybe you're a brilliant physicist with ADD and terrible writing skills, I don't know. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; but I'll stick with discussions about pop culture and such in the future with you.

[lancek4]

To elaborate on my 2nd point.

Kant can in no way compare to modern science, everything is outdated and at most times too hard to understand the true meaning is his babble.
Too many naïve cozy chatters are deluded by his beautiful rethorics, and actually thinks he says anything relevant, when it has NO relevance in a modern society where science has out done him by far in every aspect. One has to be very very stupid.

I believe that if you can at least read some articles on Kant, that you might find something intriguing about his philosophy, especially since he, like many other philosophers, have many years tackled on the big metaphysical questions of being, essence, existence, and so forth. But anyway, since you've made a claim against Kant, perhaps you should outline your reasons of why he doesn't compare with modern science, or why his ideas and philosophy is outdated.

I've for many years tried to find just a tiiiiny bit of relevance in all his outdated babble.

..but ask yourself, why modern science doesn't waste time on him, or uses anything from him? ..because he only makes beautiful rethorical nonsense and babble that seduces too many cozy chatters that doesn't understand the concept of relevance.

Or you can post something that actually has relevance. Like "Plato's Cave" it's outdated, but it was the predecessor to the term "group think" and equal to the saying "cast pearls before swine".

It is ridiculous to say that becuase modern science does not reference Kant that he is irrelevant. Maybe irrelevant to a particular arena of science, but not to the whole possibility of humans existing now. In fact, judging from how much Kant is referenced in philosophy books and articles, I would say he is very relevant.

Also, it seems your characterization of modern science reveals a very small idea of what humanity and the universe is.

I am a carpenter/painter. I make things and paint things. So far as your estimation of my intelligence, I must be dumb, becuase I have never been concerned with having a career or making money or having a business hire me. I am and have always been concerned with truth and happiness.

But I do have friends. One graduated top of his class at Harvard and is a brain spine surgeon. He makes over 4 million a year. His idea of philosophy is that the universe is energy. And that's about all you'll ever get from him philosophically, except maybe, party and have lots of sex. Is he intelligent?

Another friend in a doctor of math at UNiversity of California. He develops applications for hardware that goes on satellites and probes, and used in hospitals, to transcribe data, including signs of life, and many other medical information. His philosophy is that Jesus is his savior and people should make it their job to help others the best they can.

Another friend is Hindu. He is of the merchant caste, older guy. His philosophy is quite Hindu- Buddhist and his philosophy is likewise to be of service.

Another friend is a contractor. He runs multimillion dollar building contracts. From what I've discussed with him, God made the universe and most everyone is sick becuase they don't know God.

Another friend was one of the top 3 lawyers in San Fransisco in business contracts, made millions. He is an atheist. Science explains everything. He drank his life away, lost everything, and now loves a humble life, had a heart attack and is alone. I think he has a daughter who takes care of him.

Another friend is a lawyer for social justice. Her philosophy is to help people. Believes in God but doesn't think to philosophically beyond social jusifce. She makes a pretty good non profit living.

Another friend who is an engineer in Sillocon Valley who probably had something to do with developing the device your are using right now, or at least someone you know. He runs Large contracts. His philosophy is that there is a God and people should seek to align oneself with a God to be better effective in their purpose and to be happy and helpful.

Another friend who develops cirriculum for education in the US. Her philosophy is likewise One should seek God.

I have other friends who make little money and just get by. Yes, I could say they are rather simple minds, but no more than anyone else, if I apply any criteria to say that.

I could go on.
And these are not mere aquaintences. They are Good friends.

I am not sure what your point is, or the link between intelligence and job. I'm sure my millionaire friends would think you are an idiot judging from your statement.

-

To say that science determines all relevance is to assert your proprietary privieldge of power and ignore 80% of humanity at least. Even my friends who do make lots of money, who I would say are very intelligent besides what they do for a career, are not very intelligent when it comes down to many issue I present. For one, they don't really care becuase they don't concern them, they are invested in their lives,their purpose. But I don't hit the Christian one's with "your a damn superstitious fool". (Swell, sometimes I do).

So it is that there are those who do see their purpose, or at least part of it, to consider the 'bigger' or 'deeper' questions. I see it irresponsible for such thinkers to be more biased that the humanity they are proposing to include in their proclamations. I would say HH that your idea about jobs and science and intelligence, judging from your reply on another topic, is valid as a position, but you seem to ask little questions against it, and use it like a God himself appointed you to tell everyone how it is.

You wonder how intelligent I am? I wonder how happy and fulfilled you are. How small your life is. How pathetic your life must be.

I propose that people such as you have faith. That this faith must be asserted against any dissention. That indeed, if someone was to present you wih facts that showed you were incorrect in your assessment of what is true, you could not hear it, in fact, you would blatantly deny it with personal attacks.

But I may be wrong; I am open to being incorrect.

[WanderingLands]

Such as?

My best bet is delusional crap, just like many people turn to religion for imaginary answers, but please prove me wrong!

Here it is, the great and wonderful (satirical emphasis intended) philosophers of our time; ranging from metaphysics, to ethics, morality, and to even things human and phenomenal.

• Plato
• Aristotle
• Pythagoras
• Heraclitus
• Parmenides
• Suhrawardi
• Ibn Arabi
• Averroes
• Baruch Spinoza
• Rene Descartes
• G.W. Leibniz
• Immanuel Kant
• G.W.F. Hegel
• Plotinus
• Henrik Cornelius Agrippa
• Giovanni Pico de Mirandola
• Marsilio Ficino
• Avicenna
• Socrates
• Soren Kierkegaard
• Friederich Nietzsche
• Martin Heidegger
• Jean-Paul Sartre
• Albert Camus
• Epictetus
• Seneca
• Marcus Aurelius
• Lao Tzu
• Buddha
• Giles Deleuze
• Giles Guttari
• Arthur Schopenhauer
• Edmund Husserl
• Hindu Vedanta

Just to name a few...

[lancek4]

Here's an excerpt from a Philosophy Now article about Kant, to help Hexhammer out:

Appearances in Kantian language are called ‘Phenomena' and ‘things-in-themselves,' are called ‘Noumena'.

To support his theory, Kant gave several arguments. The fourth is based on the admitted validity of Geometry which forms the bedrock for his proof of the properties of space.

This can be inferred from his statement that: “The apodeictic certainty of all geometrical propositions and the possibility of their a priori construction is grounded in this a priori necessity of space.” (B/39), and: “Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space synthetically, and yet a priori,”(B/40).

The Trouble with Geometry

Kant's view of space (and time) is the groundwork of his Critique, However the inseparable bond he claimed between geometry and the nature of space serves to undermine his case rather than support it. The following arguments question the validity of Kant's linkage between geometry and space; I will try to show that it is inconsistent with his assertions about space.

When Kant refers to geometry, he must mean Euclidean geometry, since Non-Euclidean geometry, the brainchild of the 19th Century, was unknown to him. Hence space, in Kant's philosophical system must conform to Euclidean geometry. Norman Kemp Smith, in his Commentary on the Critique, remarked that for Kant “…space in order to be space at all, must be Euclidean.”

I think that Einstein's representation of space and time in non-Euclidean terms does damage to Kant's foundations.

Ahh thanks for the actual reading of the article mr Wyman. I do not have the subscription so I couldn't read it. This post got onto a tangent due to HH small mind. And my stubbornness


I do not think historical representations of science since Kant rebut Kant's proposals either. For we, as well as him, are dealing with that in which the stating of science takes place. But, like I said, I didn't read the article, I Kant make claims upon what the essay says.