_In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon
In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon
Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of a mathematical point-of-convergence (zero point singularity) between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity? — Gnomon
Sorry to quibble, but quarks are sub-atomic, not atomic, and considered to be the smallest particle.Currently Quarks are no longer pictured as atomic, but composite. — Gnomon
The transgression occurs when we try to extend our metaphysical Minds beyond the physical limits of space-time-matter-energy. Is that excursion even permissible in modern empirical Philosophy? — Gnomon
I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes : before & after the Singularity. In Multiverse theory the chain of universes would continue in both directions : infinite past & infinite future. The implicit point is that the beginning point of our universe would not be Singular, but Incidental.Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of amathematical point-of-convergence(zero point singularity)between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity? — Gnomon
Not sure what this means in a math context. The north pole of the Riemann sphere is, in a sense, "the" point at infinity in the complex plane. So in the chordal metric one gets closer and closer to "infinity". — jgill
So, was Kant saying that his own Transcendental Idealism is an illusion and an error? Or was he merely warning about how easy it is for reason to accept "appearances" as reality, and also to imagine "ideals" as more real than the testimony of the senses? Apparently, Science can play it safe by avoiding Metaphysics altogether. but Philosophy's job description is to explore the un-mapped territory beyond the known safe zone. :smile:The antinomies themselves merely demonstrate, on the one hand, reason’s proclivity to transcendental illusion, and on the other, the very same reason’s exposition of the error contained in it. — Mww
I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible.Sorry to quibble, but quarks are sub-atomic, not atomic, and considered to be the smallest particle.
Then on the non-quibble, is Kant's work really a good example to use for your topic?
If your critique is on cosmology, why not use Ptolemy and Thales? What's so special about Kant? His transcendental idealism? This is the wrong application of Kant's work. — L'éléphant
….was Kant saying that his own Transcendental Idealism is an illusion and an error? — Gnomon
….was he merely warning about how easy it is for reason to accept "appearances" as reality, and also to imagine "ideals" as more real than the testimony of the senses? — Gnomon
Humans do this all the time, albeit not necessarily on the extreme scale shown in the antinomies, in that no matter what anybody says, from deities to theoretical physics, odds are that somebody else will find something wrong with it. — Mww
That kind of “non-sense” is what physicist Sabine Hossenfelder sarcastically calls “Existential Physics”. — Gnomon
I agree. Such speculations are metaphysical, not physical. Obviously, reasoning from experience with conditional causes to an unconditioned First Cause cannot provide empirical evidence for the actual existence of such a transcendental entity. But perhaps such reasoning beyond experience can point to a plausible explanation for existence : Ontology. Theoretical Philosophers can "boldly go" where empirical science cannot. And that's what theoretical Cosmologists have done with their conjectures of a time-before-Time. Is that a waste of time, or merely a way to put our brief time on Earth into a larger perspective?Reason doesn’t concern itself with the reality of appearances, nor imagining ideals. Reason is a logical function, by which the principles we understand in support of science, are applied to that which science doesn’t support, or hasn’t yet supported. Sometimes it works, re: chasing light beams and standing in free-falling elevators, sometimes it doesn’t, re: an unconditioned cause. — Mww
Such speculations are metaphysical, not physical. — Gnomon
Yes, the Buddha seemed to be a practical empiricist instead of a theoretical metaphysicist, focused on the concrete here & now instead of imponderable possibilities. Even so, he postulated a few metaphysical notions, such as Nirvana & Non-Self, in order to explain why we should do what he prescribed. Perhaps his avoidance of metaphysics made his philosophy more palatable to pragmatic modern Western minds, even though his own people quickly turned his austere science of the mind into ritualistic religion of the senses. :smile:Scholar T R V Murti notes in his 1955 book, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, that there are considerable similarities between this list and Kant's antinomies of reason, particularly the first four. (The book contains many comparisions of Buddhist philosophy and Kant, for which it is nowadays mainly criticized.) The Buddhist attitude towards such imponderables is expressed by the 'simile of the poisoned arrow', in which a wanderer is shot by a poisoned arrow, but rather than seeking to have it removed, wants to know who fired it, what it was made of, etc, and consequently dies as a result. The Buddha's teaching is to 'remove the arrow', i.e. overcome the cankers and cravings, rather than think about unanswerable questions such as these. — Wayfarer
:up: I guess I can't steal that word "quibbleable" now. You own it.I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible. — Gnomon
I see.This thread was inspired by the Big Think article, which mentioned "Kant's First Antinomy". The rest is just me babbling about Transcendence --- about which, according to Kant, I know nothing. — Gnomon
Then presumably there is an idea that negates "every idea contains the seeds of its own negation"...? — Banno
That's easy for you to say. :joke:I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible. — Gnomon
:up: I guess I can't steal that word "quibbleable" now. You own it. — L'éléphant
Yes, the cosmic sausage-link image does neatly encapsulate the "Big Bounce" theory of cyclic universes pinched-off from previous 'verses. But such information leakage models require some exotic physics. And the accelerated expansion models seem to turn the bounce into a "Big Rip". Those one-way models assume a single line of linear time. Yet other Cosmological models envision multiple miniverses budding-off from a singular central Multiverse. However the point of the original post is that all of these math-supported speculations, while internally logical, are not scientific theories, but philosophical conjectures that attempt to deny the unique creation-event implications of the Big Bang theory..I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes — Gnomon
Thanks for the reply. Neat image. :cool: — jgill
It would be a shame to mistake such grammatical observations for metaphysics or epistemics. — Banno
it's just a way to pass the time. — Janus
is just (P v ~P) with the content to be filled out.Thesis : The world is limited with regard to (a) time and (b) space.
Antithesis : The world is unlimited with regard to (a) time and (b) space. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.