Comments on: Space, time and idealism vs realism

By: nemo

nemo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:07:15 +0000

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

By: reece sullivan

reece sullivan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:09:45 +0000

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?

By: Stephen P. Smith

Stephen P. Smith — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:44:32 +0000

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.

By: reece sullivan

reece sullivan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:46:43 +0000

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.