There's much in this, but it implies that Kant may now be dismissed, and it's not that simple. It's akin to dismissing Newton because of special and general relativity, or Euclid because of non-Euclidean geometry.Because Kant didn't write his philosophical ideas based on modern understanding of science. — Christoffer
Statement two: Science has shown remarkable capability of verification, prediction and use.
How is is this possible if it is only the appearance of external reality (phenomena), not the external reality itself (noumena)? — Arthur Rupel
Nomena = Unknown
Phenomena = Known
Having both is essential, as you cannot have complete knowledge of any one thing, but some knowledge of what it is. This prediction is a postulate of Gödel's Incompleteness theorem. . — Josh Alfred
There seems to be a difficulty here.
Statement 1: Kant in the Critique gave a solid argument here. Remove all awareness of an object (the thing itself) and something still exists, noumena. These are the external, independent of our minds.This is a one way track: from noumena to mind to its representations to us, phenomena. All science is based on phenomena, not the true external realities, noumena (not quite what Kant may have said).
Statement two: Science has shown remarkable capability of verification, prediction and use.
How is is this possible if it is only the appearance of external reality (phenomena), not the external reality itself (noumena)?
I appreciate any ideas on this subject.
Thanks,
Arthur Rupel — Arthur Rupel
What is odd is Kant's proposal of a noumena is unobservable and therefore unscientific. — TheMadFool
Well Kant was a philosopher, not a scientist in the strict sense. Noumena are a metaphysical concept. — Echarmion
A private world then, this noumena...
I can't see how noumena can be talked of though. Did Kant simply posit noumena and then say nothing about it? — TheMadFool
But, do humans really have access to phenomena? — Evola
A scientist might notice a dark spot on a photographic plate, in one place rather than another, and conclude that the orbit of Mercury does not apparently obey Newton's laws. The phenomenon she has access to is just a dot in a particular place. — Evola
But, do humans really have access to phenomena? — Evola
But that particular dot in that particular place was taken to be a phenomenon of the planet Vulcan. If we have direct access to phenomena, how can we be so wrong about them?
It seems more like we have only access to our theories of phenomena. — Evola
I suspected as much. Is Ockham's razor applicable? — TheMadFool
Ockham's razor is applicable as part of the scientific method, i.e. within phenomena. I don't think it's a general principle of epistemology. — Echarmion
Well, the spot on the photographic plate is Mercury, where the spot happens to be was purported to be due to the existence of Vulcan.
Vulcan does not exist, so the phenomenon cannot be due to the thing-in-itself, or the noumenon that is Vulcan.
So, we need theories to connect phenomena to noumena, and these theories are fallible. Other examples might be the existence of the ether, or flogiston. Presumably the phenomena they purported to exhibit (which is why we thought they existed) were due to their noumena? — Evola
Wouldn’t Kant have to explain why the noumena is inaccessible? What’s Kant’s criteria for accessing the noumena?
He seems to be saying phenomena are an indirect means of getting to the noumena but what would satisfy Kant if direct knowing of the noumena is the issue?
I ask because if he’s asking the impossible then it seems quite futile to make the distinction noumena-phenomena. — TheMadFool
Because Kant didn't write his philosophical ideas based on modern understanding of science. — Christoffer
Therefore, I would argue that while his ideas might be interesting and thought-provoking, they are flawed because they lack all knowledge that came after him. — Christoffer
Except there is no noumenon behind "Vulcan". Though, presumably there is one behind Neptune.
Explaining phenomena in terms of unobserved, unseen aspects of reality, is not easy. We make mistakes all the time. Currently we have perhaps three major theories that explain reality in terms of spacetime, quantum fields, and replicators subject to variation and selection.
Gaining knowledge of phenomena is hard for various reasons, why is gaining knowledge of noumena impossible? — Evola
It took 100 years for gravitational waves to be observed after being discovered in the theory of general relativity. 50 years for entanglement to be observed, and 50 years for the Higgs boson. Scientific theories certainly do a great deal more than account for observations.
I'm not even sure you can claim that scientific theories are based on observations, rather they are solutions to problems. Special relativity came about through the problem of unifying electrodynamics with Newtonian mechanics for example. — Evola
Doesn't the fact that noumena have been proposed directly contradict that restriction? If reason can arrive at the existence of something, be it quantum fields or noumena, then why can't reason be employed to discover something else about these things? — Evola
But science was already very sophisticated by the time of Kant, and proved to be a reliable way of obtaining useful knowledge about the world. — darthbarracuda
Although the original Kantian metaphysics does indeed suffer from certain anachronisms in light of newer developments in science and mathematics, the general idea behind Kantian philosophy remains viable to this day. — darthbarracuda
why can't reason be employed to discover something else about these things? — Evola
Yes, but the number of possibilities for a single things spatial relation reaches infinity; it very functionality is potentially infinite (my theory called "infinite variation"). Its not a practical life/decision theory, though, like you stated."GTm applies to number theory. @MindForged
"Physics is valid within the limits of human reason."
I would change one word:
Physics is valid within the limits of human awareness. — Arthur Rupel
The question then is how is physics so successful when in a sense we are studying what we see in our minds, not what is actually out there. — Arthur Rupel
Another point: If all that a physicist know about physics is what he is conscious of and yet we have no idea what consciousness is, then what is physics? — Arthur Rupel
Another point is consciousness is a very real part of the universe, yet we seem to separate it from physics. — Arthur Rupel
It is most likely that it is impossible that it can be included, but we should at least remember it is there and that a full understanding of the cosmos is therefore not possible. — Arthur Rupel
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.