History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

“we need to make the jump to hyperspace’, quoth Solo desperately fleeing darth vaderians…

February 9th, 2016 · 1 Comment


The Fermi paradox is notable and I have no solution for it, but in the spirit of Stars Wars movies I will offer my two bits and chide skeptics with, what?….”we need to make the jump to hyperspace’, quoth Solo desperately fleeing darth vaderians…The movie makes no sense, but it does point to the need to really get going and ‘go places’ in such a huge universe by going via hyperspace which may mean something that isn’t space at all, but a version of cosmology that takes up a Kantian perspective. Or, more simply, we should consider the way we have entered the era of spooky physics and the question of non-locality which raises the question of either the limits, or the irrelevance, or the possible transcendence of space. It is the fast road to bad science to try and tinker here in the wrong way, but let’s at least face the fact that ‘non-locality’ strongly suggests something that is non-local. Is that the same as everywhere and nowhere? Pursued by darth vaderians, let’s hope there is something to it.

Let us note what ‘spaceless’ and ‘timeless’ imply: we step out of space, and apparently we can reenter anywhere we want. Ditto for the time factor, which may be more complicated and demand a different consideration. This could be nonsense, but the realm of ‘ideas’ is fleet-footed here, spaceless, timeless, so we needn’t give up hope…
As a final thought, I have expended my two bits, but…this sounds a lot like the Tibetan Book of the Dead…

It is worth considering Kant here: his transcendental deduction (in a different sense of ‘transcendental’ and ‘deduction’) tries to show the relationship of the ‘categories’ to the basics of experience. Among those categories are ‘space and time’, which is a stealth idealist Kantian sneak attack on newtonian physics, n’est-ce pas? That this does/does not imply the real/unreal existence of space and time is…a long debate indeed…

Tags: General

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 nemo // Feb 9, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    down vote

    I don’t want to misinterpret this important philosophy of Kant, so I need to ask here whether my interpretations are in accordance with what is generally accepted.

    Transcendental deduction implies that it is not experiences that let us put the concept to the object. Instead there are categories which are innate in us before we experience things, and the role of cognition and sense is to verify whether these categories apply to objects.

    Please tell me whether my understanding is correct, and if not, please supply what’s necessary.

Leave a Comment