Kant: It is Impossible to Prove God Exists as Real

[Veritas Aequitas]

What was Newton, Einstein, Bohr in Physics and all other scientists good at other than provide theoretical knowledge.
You cannot be that ignorant that theoretical science and other fields of knowledge has contributed to humanity in terms of real utilities.

Science is certainly useful, but my own personal interest is in mathematics. Science is about experimental testing. I do not intend to buy lab equipment to experimentally test things. Therefore, I do not feel particularly included in the process. Mathematics is different. It is pure abstraction. No need to buy test equipment.

Kant in fact had a one-up on all the philosophers before him.
Kant is often polled at the top as the greatest philosopher of all times.

Kant was inept, and not just in mathematics. He was the nonsense-spouting king of ineptitude.

Many of Kant's thoughts had been translated into practices that has benefited humanity.
Kant's vision and mission will provide an efficient model for humanity to progress toward the future.

We never refer to Kant in mathematics, because he has contributed absolutely nothing of value to the field. As I have pointed out previously, his argument about the undefinability of existence is merely absurd nonsense. When Kant occasionally writes something actionable, it does not stand up to scrutiny. What progress could ever come from Kant's rampant ineptitude?

The entire field of mathematics has been ignoring Kant for two centuries now. His inept ramblings on mathematics are not quoted or even mentioned anywhere. He is rightfully considered the king of the idiots. Did we really miss anything? In that case, what exactly?

You are merely spouting your uninformed and inept bias for mathematics as if mathematics is some sort of omnipotent, omniscient God. The insistence on this sort of claim is insulting your own intelligence.
Mathematics is merely tool which has its limitations:
The foundational crisis of mathematics
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundatio ... nal_crisis

Besides there is nothing practically positive with mathematics until it is applied as a tool by some [not all] fields of knowledge.

To date it is evident science is the most productive of knowledge where mathematics is merely a tool used in science.

Kant never claimed to be a mathematician at all.
So how can one expect Kantian to be a notable figure in the field of mathematics.

Kant is a philosopher and recognized as one of the greatest philosopher of all times. That you condemned Kant without basis merely insults your own intelligence.

[godelian]

Mathematics is merely tool which has its limitations:
The foundational crisis of mathematics
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundatio ... nal_crisis

Every tool has its limitations. The limitations of mathematics are actually my favorite sub-field. It is an exhilarating exercise in disaster tourism. It is like booking a tour of Chernobyl reactor number four. It is incredible fun!

Besides there is nothing practically positive with mathematics until it is applied as a tool by some [not all] fields of knowledge.

Yes, but that is where computer science kicks in. It still does not require expensive test equipment. I am not against science. It is just that I do not want to buy test equipment.

Kant never claimed to be a mathematician at all.
So how can one expect Kantian to be a notable figure in the field of mathematics.

Kant still said a few things in mathematics that committed him to a position that turned out to be glaringly wrong. Just off the top of my hat:

1. Geometry requires visual, sensory input. Wrong. He ignored Descartes' incipient work, with his coordinate system, in which he created the beginnings of the full algebraization of geometry. Geometry can be done through symbol manipulation only.
2. The natural number system is not axiomatic. Wrong. Peano and Dedekind completely axiomatized arithmetic theory.
3. Existence is undefinable as a predicate. Wrong. We use the first-order logic's existential quantifier all the time.

Kant is a philosopher and recognized as one of the greatest philosopher of all times. That you condemned Kant without basis merely insults your own intelligence.

In critique of pure reason, Kant wrote quite a few glaring errors on the ontology and epistemology of mathematics. Most of what he writes, however, does not commit him to anything. It is just not actionable. Therefore, it is not even worth debating. If we contrast that to Aristotle, he did firmly commit to actionable claims, and what he wrote, turned out to be surprisingly correct. That is why Aristotle's work is worthy of respect. Kant's work? Not so much.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Mathematics is merely tool which has its limitations:
The foundational crisis of mathematics
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundatio ... nal_crisis

Every tool has its limitations. The limitations of mathematics are actually my favorite sub-field. It is an exhilarating exercise in disaster tourism. It is like booking a tour of Chernobyl reactor number four. It is incredible fun!

Besides there is nothing practically positive with mathematics until it is applied as a tool by some [not all] fields of knowledge.

Yes, but that is where computer science kicks in. It still does not require expensive test equipment. I am not against science. It is just that I do not want to buy test equipment.

Kant never claimed to be a mathematician at all.
So how can one expect Kantian to be a notable figure in the field of mathematics.

Kant still said a few things in mathematics that committed him to a position that turned out to be glaringly wrong. Just off the top of my hat:

1. Geometry requires visual, sensory input. Wrong. He ignored Descartes' incipient work, with his coordinate system, in which he created the beginnings of the full algebraization of geometry. Geometry can be done through symbol manipulation only.
2. The natural number system is not axiomatic. Wrong. Peano and Dedekind completely axiomatized arithmetic theory.
3. Existence is undefinable as a predicate. Wrong. We use the first-order logic's existential quantifier all the time.

Kant is a philosopher and recognized as one of the greatest philosopher of all times. That you condemned Kant without basis merely insults your own intelligence.

In critique of pure reason, Kant wrote quite a few glaring errors on the ontology and epistemology of mathematics. Most of what he writes, however, does not commit him to anything. It is just not actionable. Therefore, it is not even worth debating. If we contrast that to Aristotle, he did firmly commit to actionable claims, and what he wrote, turned out to be surprisingly correct. That is why Aristotle's work is worthy of respect. Kant's work? Not so much.

Kant is not a mathematician per se.

The points you made above are related to the philosophy of mathematics not mathematics per se.

I agree with Kant from a philosophical basis on point 1 and 3 above, not sure with 2.
The points are contentious and you cannot simply brush them off without understanding [not agree with] Kant argument.

Re point 1, it is evident we see geometric patterns [triangles, squares, polygons] everywhere in nature.
We are using geometry to formalize those patterns which are consistent to facilitate communications and its uses.
Thus Kant's claim that geometry is grounded on the senses, intuition and the empirical is true.

Kant argued Mathematics is synthetic and not analytic.
Humans first observed units in nature and significantly one's fingers and toes, one head, one dick, two legs etc.

[godelian]

Thus Kant's claim that geometry is grounded on the senses, intuition and the empirical is true.

It does not fundamentally need to be. It can be done by solving the zeros in multivariate polynomials:

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

Algebraic geometry is a branch of mathematics which uses abstract algebraic techniques, mainly from commutative algebra, to solve geometrical problems. Classically, it studies zeros of multivariate polynomials; the modern approach generalizes this in a few different aspects.

There is nothing visually-sensory about a polynomial. It is just a symbol stream.

Humans first observed units in nature and significantly one's fingers and toes, one head, one dick, two legs etc.

Yes, but computers can do all of that too. Computers are not humans. That is why I reject psychologism as a legitimate ontology for mathematics. Furthermore, animals also have basic mathematical abilities embedded in their biological firmware.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus Kant's claim that geometry is grounded on the senses, intuition and the empirical is true.

It does not fundamentally need to be. It can be done by solving the zeros in multivariate polynomials:

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

Algebraic geometry is a branch of mathematics which uses abstract algebraic techniques, mainly from commutative algebra, to solve geometrical problems. Classically, it studies zeros of multivariate polynomials; the modern approach generalizes this in a few different aspects.

There is nothing visually-sensory about a polynomial. It is just a symbol stream.

Humans first observed units in nature and significantly one's fingers and toes, one head, one dick, two legs etc.

Yes, but computers can do all of that too. Computers are not humans. That is why I reject psychologism as a legitimate ontology for mathematics. Furthermore, animals also have basic mathematical abilities embedded in their biological firmware.

The point is the fundamental of mathematics and geometry are grounded on human senses originally.
It is the same with animals.
Without the human system there would be no human related mathematics or animals related numbering.

It is from this human grounded number and geometric shapes that other shapes are generated.

Even logic is grounded biologically:
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960

If there are no living things what exists is probably this:


It is likely it is not even the above.
Nothing can be said beyond that.

[Sculptor]

You can find an in-depth discussion on the matter in the page on Godel's proof:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6 ... ical_proof

I aksed YOU what is meant by "basic" not wiki

In general, the base case is the termination point in a recursive algorithm, necessary to prevent the recursive algorithm from going into an infinite loop:

You are a total clueless wonder.
A prime example of someone who knows how to copy and paste, but sadly think this is the same thing as understanding.
Did you have any schooling at all?

I asked you about "Basic" beliefs. What you think you meant when you say that a belief in god (or whatever) is truly basic.
All you respond with is a list in irrelevant gobbets from Wiki which have nothing whatever to so with this issue.


Thanks for confirming what I thought about you.

[godelian]

I aksed YOU what is meant by "basic" not wiki

In general, the base case is the termination point in a recursive algorithm, necessary to prevent the recursive algorithm from going into an infinite loop:

You are a total clueless wonder.
A prime example of someone who knows how to copy and paste, but sadly think this is the same thing as understanding.
Did you have any schooling at all?

I asked you about "Basic" beliefs. What you think you meant when you say that a belief in god (or whatever) is truly basic.
All you respond with is a list in irrelevant gobbets from Wiki which have nothing whatever to so with this issue.


Thanks for confirming what I thought about you.

Well, in that case, ask someone else about recursive algorithms and how they relate to Aristotle's approach to the matter. Furthermore, it is not my fault that you do not understand Aristotle's original writings.

[Sculptor]

In general, the base case is the termination point in a recursive algorithm, necessary to prevent the recursive algorithm from going into an infinite loop:

You are a total clueless wonder.
A prime example of someone who knows how to copy and paste, but sadly think this is the same thing as understanding.
Did you have any schooling at all?

I asked you about "Basic" beliefs. What you think you meant when you say that a belief in god (or whatever) is truly basic.
All you respond with is a list in irrelevant gobbets from Wiki which have nothing whatever to so with this issue.


Thanks for confirming what I thought about you.

Well, in that case, ask someone else about recursive algorithms and how they relate to Aristotle's approach to the matter. Furthermore, it is not my fault that you do not understand Aristotle's original writings.

I'm pretty sure you have never opened a book of Aristotle.
lol
Please cite!

[Sculptor]

No basic belief is valid.

All basic beliefs are axiomatic and mere assertions upon which other things are built.

No matter how strong and valid they appear, they are definitively baseless and reliant of an arbitrary scheme.

As such interpretations and logical claims resulting from basic beliefs are nothing more than a house of cards.

And so this thread is pretty much verbal dioreah.

[godelian]

I'm pretty sure you have never opened a book of Aristotle.
lol
Please cite!

I literally quoted as examples of recursive processes the following two passages from Aristotle:

For example, in Physics, Aristotle writes:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.8.viii.html

If then everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and the movent must either itself be moved by something else or not, and in the former case there must be some first movent that is not itself moved by anything else, while in the case of the immediate movent being of this kind there is no need of an intermediate movent that is also moved (for it is impossible that there should be an infinite series of movents, each of which is itself moved by something else, since in an infinite series there is no first term)-if then everything that is in motion is moved by something, and the first movent is moved but not by anything else, it much be moved by itself.

In Posterior analytics, Aristotle writes:

https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html

The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.

Go two posts back. I quoted them there already.

Aristotle describes a recursive process, declares that it cannot infinitely go on, and therefore discovers that there must be a base case. It is the earliest example in history of recursive programming.

[Sculptor]

I'm pretty sure you have never opened a book of Aristotle.
lol
Please cite!

I literally quoted as examples of recursive processes the following two passages from Aristotle:

For example, in Physics, Aristotle writes:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.8.viii.html

If then everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and the movent must either itself be moved by something else or not, and in the former case there must be some first movent that is not itself moved by anything else, while in the case of the immediate movent being of this kind there is no need of an intermediate movent that is also moved (for it is impossible that there should be an infinite series of movents, each of which is itself moved by something else, since in an infinite series there is no first term)-if then everything that is in motion is moved by something, and the first movent is moved but not by anything else, it much be moved by itself.

In Posterior analytics, Aristotle writes:

https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html

The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions.

Go two posts back. I quoted them there already.

Aristotle describes a recursive process, declares that it cannot infinitely go on, and therefore discovers that there must be a base case. It is the earliest example in history of recursive programming.

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

[godelian]

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

In both cases, Aristotle concludes that there must be a base case, i.e. a basic belief.

In the first case, in Physics, Aristotle recurses causality and arrives at the necessity for a first cause.
In the second case, in Posterior Analytics, Aristotle recurses over justification for a belief and arrives at the necessity for a first unjustified belief.

Aristotle rejects the possibility of an infinite loop. Therefore, there must be a terminating case for the loop.

So, for example, if f(n) = n + f(n-1), then f(n-1) = n + f(n-2), and so on. However, at some point it must stop. So, for example, f(0) = 0. This is the terminating or base case.

It is absolutely about basic beliefs. This is exactly how Aristotle came to develop foundationalism: the inevitable necessity of basic beliefs in a logical system.

[Sculptor]

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

In both cases, Aristotle concludes that there must be a base case, i.e. a basic belief.

In the first case, in Physics, Aristotle recurses causality and arrives at the necessity for a first cause.
In the second case, in Posterior Analytics, Aristotle recurses over justification for a belief and arrives at the necessity for a first unjustified belief.

Aristotle rejects the possibility of an infinite loop. Therefore, there must be a terminating case for the loop.

So, for example, if f(n) = n + f(n-1), then f(n-1) = n + f(n-2), and so on. However, at some point it must stop. So, for example, f(0) = 0. This is the terminating or base case.

It is absolutely about basic beliefs. This is exactly how Aristotle came to develop foundationalism: the inevitable necessity of basic beliefs in a logical system.

FFS. The whole point about a basic belief is that it is not derivable. That's why its called basic

[Skepdick]

In the CPR of Kant under Transcendental Dialectic: Ideal, Kant argued it is impossible to prove God exists as real. [NK Smith's

Kant sounds confused.

"Real" is everything which is within reality. If God exists, God's the creator of reality.

Therefore not within reality.

If you were to prove the cause of reality to be within reality you get yourself a big circle.

[godelian]

THis is not about Basic Belief FFS

In both cases, Aristotle concludes that there must be a base case, i.e. a basic belief.

In the first case, in Physics, Aristotle recurses causality and arrives at the necessity for a first cause.
In the second case, in Posterior Analytics, Aristotle recurses over justification for a belief and arrives at the necessity for a first unjustified belief.

Aristotle rejects the possibility of an infinite loop. Therefore, there must be a terminating case for the loop.

So, for example, if f(n) = n + f(n-1), then f(n-1) = n + f(n-2), and so on. However, at some point it must stop. So, for example, f(0) = 0. This is the terminating or base case.

It is absolutely about basic beliefs. This is exactly how Aristotle came to develop foundationalism: the inevitable necessity of basic beliefs in a logical system.

FFS. The whole point about a basic belief is that it is not derivable. That's why its called basic

Look carefully at how Aristotle derives that these basic beliefs must exist:

(1) You take an algorithm and observe that it recurses.
(2) You observe that the algorithm does not run forever. It does not contain an infinite loop. It does terminate.
(3) Therefore, the algorithm must have a terminating clause, i.e. a base case.

Did you read how Aristotle used this reasoning in Physics and Posterior Analytics? I quoted the exact fragments.