Aquinas claims cold is a quality and darkness not and does so dogmatically, without evidence and without research. Science studies how light behaves and describes how these experiments show something physical about light itself. If you want to say that on top of this light has a quality nature well that's just philosophy and not what this thread is about. All the modern gadgets were not invented by random but took research and insight into the nature of reality

You need to study more — hope

You don't write like you know very much. Start with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M90XEREe66s

Try to learn

"medieval people did not think the earth is flat"

Most people know this

"nor did Columbus 'prove' that it is a sphere"

Nobody says he landed in China lol

"the Inquisition burnt nobody for their science"

If it contradicted the Bible or "true" philosophy, yes they did.

"nor was Copernicus afraid of persecution"

He was faithful to Christian philosophy

"no Pope tried to ban human dissection or the number zero"

Many bishops did.

You need to study more

I have not presented myths. Aquinas says that the planet's other than earth were right below the human soul in their god-like nature, being incorruptible and the noblest of matter (fire being a lower form of them). This is just pagan mysticism

We can see light. Matter is not just colors and we know it exists. Apparently you're a solipsist

And there's the mental illness. You know what a car is right? If it hits you you really think it will only be colors hitting you? Scientists have analyzed light the same as they have studied combustion.

So light is a color? How is it that you feel comfortable rejecting proven data without even giving counter arguments?

And the properties of light are electricity and magnetism

What do you mean? Light is electric and magnetic, presenting itself as particles while being a wave through the reality of spacetime

Thanks

The

Kent's assumption is that the thing in itself will confirm to the mind

The point of Kant's critique of Hume is that in the former's position does not allow matter to suddenly act bizzare while for Hume this could happen at any time. Kant has his own mind as a guarantee for the sanity of existence

The footnotes are indicating that is from the preface. I also added the "material meaning" quote (which I think is also from the preface) in showing that Kant is speaking of the world in a brand new way that was revolutionary from how people spoke of it prior to him. This is phenomenology

It's actually from Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786). I'm reading Michael Friedman's book on it right now.

Having read the whole thread, I wanted to ask what you thought of the argument itself of space and time being intuitions. Kant says "matter's motion or rest merely in relation to the mode of representation or modality, and *thus* to appearance of the outer sense, is called phenomenology." He also talks of the "material *meaning*" of nature. That we don't sense the world as it is in itseld is the heart of his philosophy. I oscillate between materialism and Kantianism and sometimes hold both at once (Hegelianism), but I hesitate to say that Kant proved anything positive in these regards. Space and time are needed for the world as legs are needed for a table, yet maybe the table always existed as a whole. And maybe we do see things in themselves in some sense although we add space and time to them

Quick question: why can't we throw out self reference with regard to Gödel like they did with Russell's paradox?

In this book on Kant I'm reading it quotes him as saying the thing in itself "are nothing in themselves" but "lie at the basis of these appearances". For *us* only appearance counts. However, for Kant appearances are " determinable" and in this enlightenment view of Kant he contradicts Einstein who said we can never fully grasp the world.

Since I brought up Heidegger, I wanted to clarify that he seems to say time is prior to space, while Kant says "Space is a necessary a priori representation, which lies at the basis of all outer intuition.."

Empirical reasoning and logic go hand in hand in our lives. Kant goes ultra introspective in order to find his schemas. We live in this time and age and we know how the world of cause and effect work for the most part

If there is true randomness in the universe, what ever is random is beyond the control of God

All very interesting. It is hard to know what causes force because we only know it's effects. They say gravity is not a force although it hits like a force. Are we feeling only the hard surface and no force at all when we hit the ground?

I don't think you've contradicted Heidegger or that Heidegger contradicts Derrida and Husserl. What philosophy was saying since Kant about the union of consciousness with the world is now confirmed by the sciences

"Insofar as Da-sein temporalizes itself with regard to its being it is the world... The world is neither objectively present nor at hand, but temporalizes itself in temporality.. If no Da-sein exists, no world is 'there' either." Heidegger, 1927

Kant started the philosophy which says our conscious perceptions along with the world create perception proper (all our experiences). This is the essence of the modern views of philosophy, and psychology and physics have added to this understanding from their own individual fields

https://www.zacharyfruhling.com/philosophy-blog/strong-emergence-is-holism-not-magic

The "further reading" is good too

You reject general relativity and set theory because of your ontology, and your ontology rejects emergence. There is the problem. An object has no weight on it's own, and neither does spacetime. But together they form the world of substance we experience as weight. In set theory Zero means "no thing" and Set is a collecting of something. But the concepts together form something that is useful in the practice of set theory

So the cosmological argument was mentioned. Matter is able to be explained according to material laws. If an aspect of eternal time and infinite space, both of which can be in various ways, is accepted the cosmological argument is not necessary as a proof. In fact, calling objects hybrids of form and prime matter most nicely sets up a system within which relativity and quantum mechanics can exist side by side. Nor does time have to be infinite, but could have existed in a finite loop as it was creating with the first motion of matter following the laws of gravity. Einstein and Hawking each had a theory as to how the cosmological argument fails and any appeals to the contingency of the world is going beyond science and into unfounded philosophy. The universe is contingent and necessary at different times in that it changes from substance to flux, always following the laws of matter-energy equivalence. There is no need for non-material energy in the world

Dividing an object to find a different scheme of physics leads itself to use terms and ideas from old philosophies without, however, accepting their full systems

When are you going to sell all your personal items and give them to poverty stricken places around the world?

Should you have the right to pollute the air and threaten the bodily existence of other beings while you do it? — Sha'aniah

To an extent, yes

Very interesting. Experiments on Bell's theorem has information moving instantaneously such that we have to question how space, time, or causality works in the quantum realm. There is no need for general relativity to work in the world of quantum because it is a different type of physical space

I don't know about the actual philosophy of science proving something apart from work in the field. Quantum mechanics describes a world different from relativity and so have different rules. Philosophy has to start with some empirical with which to work with in order to understand the mechanics of science. Or so it seems

Does substantial mean real in that context? If someone didn't believe the world was real he would be a solipsist

I think Nietzsche was a true philosopher but the number of his original ideas are limited. He had a lot to say about each nonetheless

Mercy takes justice out of account

Maybe but Nietzsche has some good points and also his criticism need to be taken with a grain of salt. Mostly I take psychological points from his writing as does Jordan Peterson

So to wrap this thread up, can we say we don't need to know the full adaptive biology of successive species to know that they evolve from each other?

Thanks

I was talking about letting people free when they deserve a punishment. Such is not good for anyone. Concern and kindness is good, but many Christians believe God let's sinners off the hook out of pure mercy. Mercy like that is contrary to justice

Aquinas said that an essential infinite past is impossible without God because God alone makes it essential, otherwise it is accidental and dependent on itself. He didn't understand physics however! If you have an infinite dominoes series than saying each fall of a dominoes is caused by the previous doesn't explain how the series works, but if you have gravity in the equation the infinite series is self consistent. Imagine the universe as an infinite slide causing water to slide it forever in the past and future. In this case we don't have a dominoes series where there is no engine of causality. We have gravity working it's magic and all that is required is a properly modelled universe

Black holes are an examples of inconsistency within pockets of our otherwise rational universe. Below the event horizon causality breaks down and all our laws of thought are violated. The law of explosion is not a law. It's an error, for when does a paradox become a contradiction? When we don't like it. Are minds are not made from infallible rules and although we must follow logic, logic doesn't have to respect us..