11.02.09
Space, time and idealism vs realism
Comment on 3 silly beliefs held by critics of silly Xtians
Your perplexity is absolutely to the point and represents one of the major philosophical debates in the last two centuries. Let me note that while Kant went out of his way to reconcile his views with ordinary realism, admitting the real existence of space and time, Schopenhauer berated him for not accepting the full implications of his transcendental idealism.
So, who knows? The question is obviously very deep.
I am going to get a copy of The Matter Myth again and respond to that.
On the surface physics and Kant don’t seem to match, but there is a close connection, visible in QM. In general, the findings of physics tend to suggest something is strange in the relation of consciousness and matter.
reece sullivan said,
November 2, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Ah,
My gut reaction is to agree with Schopenhauer . . . it’s been so long since I read anything by him (the world as . . .), that I wouldn’t have even thought he would’ve had anything to say about such metaphysical subjects.
I read “That Matter Myth” b/c it was referenced in “God & The Philosophers” by Keith Ward (not to be confused with another book by the same title that’s quite different), which is something of a layman’s book but still gives a good critique of materialism, in my opinion.
My feeling is that when it comes to these things such as time and space, we have to go on anything we’ve got and make the most educated guesses we can. That said, it feels on topic to mention that my thoughts about time (and space, for that matter, too) while on hallucinogens has been that it’s certainly not what we think of it during ordinary consciousness, and, further, this – experiences on hallucinogens – is why I tend towards Schopenhauer’s view. The most basic thing in philosophy that tends to articulate my thoughts on reality best is Plato’s cave allegory . . . and I think that it’s consciousness that’s the “fire” or “light” casting the shadows.
Stephen P. Smith said,
November 3, 2009 at 10:44 am
One approach is to construct a space-time geometry within the intuitionist paradigm, and then relate this geometry to concrete space-time. I think this is doable, and I start this effort in my book on the topic of general relativity. The construction becomes dialectical. For example, Euclidean geometry is found passing over into Riemannian geometry, and invariant geometric constructs are found being held together by a middle-term that unites the covariant and contravariant. Kant`s synthetics can be collected and used to induces a geometry (built up from noted equations), but for abstract geometry to approach real space-time it must be that the synthetics are refined and purified by the dialectical program. That the synthetics are real in the limit means that the essence of mind sources the space-time fabric, agreeing with transcendental idealism.
I will note that our macro-dimensions that are apparent are very telling, removed from the quantum scale of the uncertainty principle and the galactic sale of black holes, of three spatial dimension and one temporal dimension. I believe we see the our space-time dimensions because it is necessary for us to perform error recognition. We have the necessary dimensions that are needed to correct all our mistakes, confirming a transcendental idealism. We have the needed dimensions to distinguish constructed distance from constructed straightness, and we can distinguish intrinsic straightness that is limited to a surface manifold from extrinsic curvature that embeds the manifold. This is a three fold passage again, where the impetus to construct distance, straightness, and curvature is found held together by a middle term that hints of the beyond.
reece sullivan said,
November 3, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Stephen or nemo,
Obviously Kant is talked about a lot here; although I’ve read about him and even attempted reading some of his works, it’s been years ago and I clearly didn’t understand him. What’s the best and most accessible intro to Kant either of you can suggest?
nemo said,
November 3, 2009 at 8:07 pm
There are a large number of resources, but one of the best, shortest, and charming is S. Korner’s Kant: you can get it secondhand at Amazon for almost nothing, eight bucks.
I will cite other books tommorrow
http://www.amazon.com/Kant-Stephen-Korner/dp/0300027923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257296596&sr=1-1