That's a pretty good summary of the antinomies of reason. Notice that there have been several scholars who have noticed resemblances with the 'undeclared questions' of Buddhism:

Kant's Antinomies of Reason:

The first antinomy (of space and time)
Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and is also limited as regards space.
Anti-thesis: The world has no beginning, and no limits in space; it is infinite as regards both time and space.

The second antinomy (of atomism)
Thesis: every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts, and nothing anywhere exists save the simple or what is composed of the simple.
Anti-thesis: No composite thing in the world is made up of simple parts, and there nowhere exists in the world anything simple.

The dynamical antinomies
The third antinomy (of spontaneity and causal determinism)
Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived. To explain these appearances it is necessary to assume that there is also another causality, that of Spontaneity.
Anti-thesis: There is no Spontaneity; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature.
The fourth antinomy (of necessary being or not)
Thesis:There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.
Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.

The Undeclared Questions of Buddhism:

The world is eternal.
The world is not eternal.
The world is (spatially) infinite.
The world is not (spatially) infinite.
The being imbued with a life force [i.e. 'the soul'] is identical with the body.
The being imbued with a life force is not identical with the body.
The Tathagata (the Buddha) exists after death.
The Tathagata does not exist after death.
The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.

This was explored at length by T R V Murti in a 1955 book called The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (referring to Madhyamika; see e.g. here). Murti has rather fallen out of favour in the opinion of later Buddhist studies academics, but it was the first book through which I encountered Kant and my thesis supervisor for Buddhist Studies still recommends it.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

These principles of understanding - the so-called categories - are no more derived from things than are space and time themselves; as Kant says, they are transcendent in respect of things; they are not drawn from experience, they make it. — tim wood

It’s a pity this thread got derailed so quickly. I take some responsibility for that. But the above point is of crucial significance in understanding the relationship of science and philoosphy, and in my nine years of posting on philosophy forums, I reckon you could count on one hand the number of people who get it.