The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The Ten Assumptions of Science:
Glenn Borchardt

"
1st Assumption: MATERIALISM
The external world exists after the observer does not.

At first thought, MATERIALISM appears obvious.
How could anyone believe that the external world does not exist?
How could anyone not be a materialist?
Even the etymology of the words “external” and “exists” begs a practical, matter-of-fact acceptance of this, the First Assumption of Science.
But as with all Ten Assumptions of Science, experience can provide only support for MATERIALISM; it cannot prove it [materialism] beyond a shred of an indeterminist’s doubt."
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 3:37 am When a person wears the scientist-hat, he will have to comply with the Constitution, rules, assumptions, limitation, processes, procedure of the Scientific Method within the scientific FSK.

The Classical Scientists will merely ASSUME there is an external reality beyond the phenomena awaiting discovery.

As I have stated, modern scientists don't give a damn with the assumption of an external world beyond the phenomena.
If they do that is their personal philosophical views based on the illusory philosophical realism as driven by cognitive dissonances.

Note;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510

Here at 54:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0
Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

But on a personal basis, Professor Jim Al-Khalili still thinks a mind-independent reality is likely. If his cognitive dissonance gets stronger in time, he will soon reject the reality of Quantum Physics.

Scientists like Hawking don't give a fuck with the ASSUMPTION a mind-independent reality till he passed away.

Btw, it is argued, scientists can do away with ASSUMPTIONS and just do their work based on empirical evidences within the scientific method, peer reviews, etc.
Ask 100 scientists, I think at least 99 will choose "nature is probably real" over "nature is impossible to be real", with or without the scientists's hat on.

Reject WHAT reality of quantum physics, what on Earth are you talking about? Al-Khalili meant that according to some interpretations of QM, a part of nature doesn't exist as real, when no one is looking, and/or when it is microscopic. Such views are not held by most scientists, no one knows what an "observer" in quantum mechanics actually means, no one knows what "looking" actually refers to here, no one knows what "microscopic" would mean here. And even in this view, a part of the noumenon is really-real, as long as you are looking at it, and/or it is macroscopic etc.

The majority interpretation in QM however is that all the noumenon is really-real. For example treating a superposition as real.

Now you can make entirely mind-dependent interpertations of QM too, but I think it has less than 1% support. And you have the huge problem of explaining why nothing turns real not just randomly (and even then only apparently), but as if it had followed certain equations all along, while it was non-existent. This real/unreal distinction is entirely unnecessary here, it has no explanatory value.
Last edited by Atla on Fri Jun 09, 2023 4:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 4:00 am The Ten Assumptions of Science:
Glenn Borchardt

"
1st Assumption: MATERIALISM
The external world exists after the observer does not.

At first thought, MATERIALISM appears obvious.
How could anyone believe that the external world does not exist?
How could anyone not be a materialist?
Even the etymology of the words “external” and “exists” begs a practical, matter-of-fact acceptance of this, the First Assumption of Science.
But as with all Ten Assumptions of Science, experience can provide only support for MATERIALISM; it cannot prove it [materialism] beyond a shred of an indeterminist’s doubt."
Note the difference between "impossible to be certain" and "impossible to be real".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Principle:
Reality [what is real], facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Because the scientific FSK is human-based, what follows from it cannot be mind-independent.
Scientific reality and truths are limited only to the phenomena, not the noumena.

The noumena, i.e. the supposed externality is merely an ASSUMPTION adopted by classical science and assumptions are not imperative for science-in-general.

Assume = to take for granted or without proof:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume

Since the noumena is merely an ASSUMPTION [without proof], it is impossible for the noumena to be certainly real within the scientific FSK which is human-based.

How else [by what methods or FSKs] can the noumena be proven to be real?
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 4:48 am Principle:
Reality [what is real], facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible and reliable.
Because the scientific FSK is human-based, what follows from it cannot be mind-independent.
Scientific reality and truths are limited only to the phenomena, not the noumena.

The noumena, i.e. the supposed externality is merely an ASSUMPTION adopted by classical science and assumptions are not imperative for science-in-general.

Assume = to take for granted or without proof:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume

Since the noumena is merely an ASSUMPTION [without proof], it is impossible for the noumena to be certainly real within the scientific FSK which is human-based.

How else [by what methods or FSKs] can the noumena be proven to be real?
It's impossible to prove that noumena are real. It's also impossible to prove that noumena aren't real.
It's even impossible to prove that all the phenomena aren't just illusions created by an evil demon, in order to deceive you.

Absolute certainty is always unattainable. If it's true as you claim, that Kant says that the noumena are impossible to be real, then he's trying to prove a negative, he doesn't understand that absolute certainty is unattainable. In my opinion that would be a beginner mistake.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The rationale of Kant re Noumena as impossible to be real as I had repeated a few times,

What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable at present.

The noumenon is merely idea or thought of an intelligible object,
intelligible objects need an intelligible intuition to cognize them,
humans do not have intelligible intuition [if this is even possible], but only have sensible intuition [human based FSK of reality] to cognize real phenomena,
therefore, it is impossible for the noumena to be real.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:31 am The rationale of Kant re Noumena as impossible to be real as I had repeated a few times,

What is reality, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable at present.

The noumenon is merely idea or thought of an intelligible object,
intelligible objects need an intelligible intuition to cognize them,
humans do not have intelligible intuition [if this is even possible], but only have sensible intuition [human based FSK of reality] to cognize real phenomena,
therefore, it is impossible for the noumena to be real.
You seem to be conflating noumenon as the mind-dependent reference, and noumenon as the mind-independent referent. Intelligible intuition isn't needed to posit something outside the mind.

This is nonsense. I don't particularly like Kant but I doubt that he was a straight idiot like that.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Kant wrote;
Kant wrote:For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible object] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves [intelligible objects].
B336
To understand [not necessary agree] this issue, one has to read the whole of Kant's CPR or at least the Chapter on Noumena vs Phenomena thoroughly [at least 10 time] as in these OPs;
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987
therefrom it would be intellectually effective if one were to critique the points therein line by line.

I have said enough.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:26 am Kant wrote;
Kant wrote:For the Intelligible would require a quite peculiar Intuition which we do not possess,
and in the absence of this [Intuition] [the intelligible object] would be for us nothing at all;
and, on the other hand, it is also evident that Appearances could not be Objects-in-Themselves [intelligible objects].
B336
To understand [not necessary agree] this issue, one has to read the whole of Kant's CPR or at least the Chapter on Noumena vs Phenomena thoroughly [at least 10 time] as in these OPs;
viewtopic.php?t=40170
viewtopic.php?t=39987
therefrom it would be intellectually effective if one were to critique the points therein line by line.

I have said enough.
I'll read them today to try to find the error, but again, I'm using noumenon in the modern sense anyway, where it by definition has twofold meaning.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The term 'noumenon' is most relevant in the Kantian context.
Even dictionaries refer the term 'noumenon' to Kant.

Noumenon in the modern context??
Show credible references to that.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:47 am The term 'noumenon' is most relevant in the Kantian context.
Even dictionaries refer the term 'noumenon' to Kant.

Noumenon in the modern context??
Show credible references to that.
You realize the Critique is two and a half centuries old right?
Kantian scholars have long debated two contrasting interpretations of the thing-in-itself. One is the dual object view, according to which the thing-in-itself is an entity distinct from the phenomena to which it gives rise. The other is the dual aspect view, according to which the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears are two "sides" of the same thing. This view is supported by the textual fact that "Most occurrences of the phrase 'things-in-themselves' are shorthand for the phrase, 'things considered in themselves' (Dinge an sich selbst betrachtet)."[33] Although we cannot see things apart from the way we do in fact perceive them via the physical senses, we can think them apart from our mode of sensibility (physical perception); thus making the thing-in-itself a kind of noumenon or object of thought.
Since then science has firmly established the dual object view as the likely candidate to be correct, so noumenon today usually has a twofold meaning.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:47 am The term 'noumenon' is most relevant in the Kantian context.
Even dictionaries refer the term 'noumenon' to Kant.

Noumenon in the modern context??
Show credible references to that.
You realize the Critique is two and a half centuries old right?
Kantian scholars have long debated two contrasting interpretations of the thing-in-itself.

1. One is the dual object view, according to which the thing-in-itself is an entity distinct from the phenomena to which it gives rise.

2. The other is the dual aspect view, according to which the thing-in-itself and the thing-as-it-appears are two "sides" of the same thing. This view is supported by the textual fact that "Most occurrences of the phrase 'things-in-themselves' are shorthand for the phrase, 'things considered in themselves' (Dinge an sich selbst betrachtet)."[33]
Although we cannot see things apart from the way we do in fact perceive them via the physical senses, we can think them apart from our mode of sensibility (physical perception); thus making the thing-in-itself a kind of noumenon or object of thought.
Since then science has firmly established the dual object view as the likely candidate to be correct, so noumenon today usually has a twofold meaning.
Note 'long debated' means since 2.5 centuries ago.
It does not matter how long ago, the philosophical views were raised, the question is whether they can pass the critical and rational test.
I am very confident, Kant theories [he labelled them as Critical Philosophy] had passed the the critical and rational test.

Interpretation 1 above is the philosophical realists' view that Kant had refuted in his CPR.

Interpretation 2 is Kant's own view, i.e. one can think of the noumenon but that is only an object-of-thought which is apart from real realized phenomena.

Realized phenomena are things emerged and realized prior to being perceived, known and described.
See this;
"The world is a n-dimensional energy soup; what is time & space are conditioned upon the organism's mind in evolutionary time, in the case of humans, the human mind.
15.10"
and understand [not necessary agree with] it thoroughly.

The ">1000 times" Science merely accept the noumena as an ASSUMPTION.
How can an assumption ever be the scientifically real thing?
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:08 am Interpretation 1 above is the philosophical realists' view that Kant had refuted in his CPR.
It's not possible to refute or prove the existence of a real dual-object noumenon. No one can prove a negative, not even Kant. Therefore he must have refuted some other position. What exactly do you mean by the philosophical realists' view, that Kant refuted?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

If a claim can only be thought but cannot be proven nor disproven, then it must be a nonsensical thing, which the noumenon is.
The noumenon is not a negative thing, but rather the noumenon, as merely thought is it has any use, can only be use in the negative sense.

For example, Santa as a noumenal cannot be claimed to be a real positive sensible physical thing existing like a normal human being;
The idea of Santa as a thought can only be used negatively as a fictitious entity by sensible people to dupe children.
If anyone were to insist positively Santa exists as a real person living some where in the North Pole, then the onus is on the positive claimant to provide proofs.

It is ridiculous for any to insist, no one can refute Santa Claus because it cannot be proven nor disproven.
It is the same with the noumenon which is driven by an evolutionary default to soothe the related cognitive dissonances.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The noumenon: the abstract and the concrete

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:43 am If a claim can only be thought but cannot be proven nor disproven, then it must be a nonsensical thing, which the noumenon is.
Extreme non-sequitur, probably coming from someone who clings to a false illusion of certainty.

It already fails on an even more fundamental level, than what we've been discussing. By this logic, if you can't prove or disprove that your phenomena aren't illusions created by an evil demon, or a computer simulation created by a little green alien called Joe who is about to press alt+f4 and go play Minecraft instead, or a solipsistic training exercise created by God for future angels, or just plain old hallucinations, etc. etc. etc. then:
any claim about phenomena is nonsensical. So we shouldn't be so dumb as to make any claim about anything, ever. The End.

And it fails on the level that we've been discussing. What matters is consistency, not absolute certainty. There is a fundamental difference between positing a real double-object noumenon, and positing Santa. As you say, science is our best guess, and what science has found is that the world seems to be consistent with the existence of certain double-object noumena, but not consistent with the existence of Santa.
Post Reply