Time exists in understanding physics. Space, as well. On a higher level there is just phenomena but Kant leads to those higher levels of thought and its not required to have a "proof"

One cannot make it (time and space) right without destroying the Critique. Let me reiterate: Kant is my favorite philosopher, so erudite and moral and one not easy to dismiss. I think he was trying to save Lutheranism from materialism and the Critique was his best shot.

Kant has already explained why the antinomies are faulty

Kant said the antinomies are necessary contradictions which lead the mind to higher levels

The critique oft the antinomies leads the mind to higher levels

He doesn't solve them

The way I see it: Does the universe have a beginning? The universe either has a beginning or it does not have a beginning if there is a universe. Astro physics says it began about 14 billion years ago and Aristotle said it always existed. I just disregard the antinomies as does astronomy. Aristotle was not aware of the antinomies,

The world is phenomena so its best to see the world as eternal but in Kant's way, not Aristotle's. Modern physics has this all worked out. The only antimony that defies any explanation is the one about infinitesimals

All the antinomies lead the mind in different ways but they are not solved but transcended

Let's examine a metaphysical and, therefore, a transcendental question for which I have the answer and hope it interests you G. The question is: why there is something rather than nothing? The question should be restated as follows: either something exists or nothing exists. But nothing does not exist and, therefore, something must exist. That leads to the conclusion that, at least, there is an eternal existent which initiated the universe.

I don't find the question of why there is something instead of nothing meaningful. We can ask "why something" but not "why not nothing". At death we go to nothing but we don't know what that is or what that means

The world is phenomena. Why is there something? Why not no thing? It doesn't matter! Why is the sky blue

Not sure Kant used those terms together, but I guess a truth derived under transcendental conditions would be a transcendental truth. — Mww

I don't think he did either. Nonetheless, for additional fodder:

Transcendent truths are those unaffected by time or space. They define the world, but are not defined by the world. An example of a transcendent truth is "God is good", or "there is no God". Either way, how one looks at things contained by time and space is a result of the transcendent truth... .
World views are made up of transcendent truths, things we believe are true before we question whether or not anything else is true.

A school of philosophy is a collection of answers to fundamental questions of the universe, based around common concepts, normally grounded in reason, and often arising from the teachings of an influential thinker.[12][13] The term "philosophy" originates with the Greek, but all world civilizations have been found to have philosophical worldviews within them... .
A religion is a system of behaviors and practices, that relate to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements,[16] but the precise definition is debated.

Transcendence is the aspect of a deity's nature and power that is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all known physical laws.

Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of various religious traditions affirm that a god is both within and beyond the universe (panentheism); in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.

In layman's terms, consider that transcendent truth's, are those metaphysical truths (conscious phenomena) like our sense of wonderment we've been discussing; the feelings about the color red, Love, abstract mathematical truth's, etc., all of course associated with human self-awareness/the human condition...then consider timeless truth's some of which are phenomena from the aforementioned features of consciousness. Accordingly, we then have a sort of Kantian innate awareness or quality that seems to transcend our typical notion of logic. (Albeit, we do know that a priori mathematical truth's seem to be timeless, eternal truth's which are considered transcendental.)

And so that's where I thought maybe you would take the previous post/question. I suppose one point would be (as I believe Kant might argue) that there is more to life other than pure reason (a priori/a posteriori).

But back to the OP, is the concept of Noumenon (part of Kant's transcendental idealism), something that exists a priori like mathematical structures? If one believes math (a timeless eternal truth), which defines the universe so well, exists independently (a priori) and is discovered from time to time (versus human invention), how does that fit into Kant's idea of Noumenon, I wonder?

Plato thought the world was phenomena (real but not fully reality). Kant believed truth was immanent and not transcendent. His basic epistemic stance is that WE are phenomena

Kant has already explained why the antinomies are faulty — val p miranda

Actually, no, he did not, for they are not faulty in the least. An antinomy perfectly exemplifies a case in which pure speculative reason inevitably conflicts with itself with respect to transcendental ideas.

“....If we employ our reason not merely in the application of the principles of the understanding to objects of experience, but venture with it beyond these boundaries, there arise certain sophistical propositions or theorems. These assertions have the following peculiarities: They can find neither confirmation nor confutation in experience; and each is in itself not only self-consistent, but possesses conditions of its necessity in the very nature of reason—only that, unluckily, there exist just as valid and necessary grounds for maintaining the contrary proposition. The questions which naturally arise in the consideration of this dialectic of pure reason, are therefore: 1st. In what propositions is pure reason unavoidably subject to an antinomy? 2nd. What are the causes of this antinomy? 3rd. Whether and in what way can reason free itself from this self-contradiction? A dialectical proposition or theorem of pure reason must, according to what has been said, be distinguishable from all sophistical propositions, by the fact that it is not an answer to an arbitrary question, which may be raised at the mere pleasure of any person, but to one which human reason must necessarily encounter in its progress. In the second place, a dialectical proposition, with its opposite, does not carry the appearance of a merely artificial illusion, which disappears as soon as it is investigated, but a natural and unavoidable illusion, which, even when we are no longer deceived by it, continues to mock us and, although rendered harmless, can never be completely removed....”
(CPR A421/B449)

Noumena is beyond (transcends) the phenomenon of observation (observing a thing), but tells us nothing about the nature of the thing. The nature of existence that is beyond logic and reason (cosmological/mystery, etc.).

That is the main 'regressive' takeaway about the physical world viz self-aware conscious beings: existence ---->logic--->phenomena--->transcendence---> noumena.

He doesn't solve them — Gregory

Uh, what am I missing? Isn't that why they're called antimonies?

That could be understood hypothetically but not as long as we are connected to phenomena

Hmm. Do you mean resolved hypothetically and conjecturally by accepting as given that which is in question - Which exercise (imo) can yield real benefits, but in themselves resolve nothing?

What I find in many of your posts that is for me at least very much a problem is a seeming mousetrap-like readiness to conclude that if something may be, then it is(!). And Kant is pre-eminently the man in the history of the entire planet as we know it who does not make that mistake, and whose philosophy is largely based in understanding such mistakes and the problems that arise from them, laying them out and bare so that others may see them for what they are and not themselves make the same mistakes. As I often find you seemingly on the wrong side of this understanding, so I oppose you.

are those metaphysical truths (conscious phenomena) like our sense of wonderment we've been discussing; the feelings — 3017amen

E.g., I can make no sense of this at all, even after trying. But it would appear you identify metaphysical truths - whatever they are - with conscious phenomena - whatever they are. Even substituting in various understandings I can't make them balance as you seem to. So I call foul, and await your clarification in language that is a good bit clearer. (And btw, when you quote a source, please include the source.)

for additional fodder:..... — 3017amen

.....all good.

is the concept of Noumenon (....) something that exists a priori like mathematical structures? — 3017amen

The concept of noumena....maybe, yes. Noumena themselves, iff there were such things.....not a chance. Mathematical structures, while a priori for their construction, lend themselves intuitively to phenomenal representation for their reality. Noumena, on the other hand, as products of the understanding, hence are only discursive constructs which eliminates them from intuition, hence can never be phenomena, hence can never be represented in the human world of objects.

Mathematical structures, while a priori for their construction, lend themselves intuitively to phenomenal representation for their reality. — Mww

If electrons are described through mathematics, does that become our reality? As Gregory alluded, is that some sort of Platonic existence?

Noumena, on the other hand, as products of the understanding, hence are only discursive constructs, can never be intuitive, hence never phenomena, hence never represented in the human world of objects. — Mww

But if mathematical structures describe the nature of the universe, how would that square with your description/quote?

But if mathematical structures describe the nature of the universe — 3017amen

We don’t know that they do; we only know they describe the universe in such a way the universe becomes comprehensible to us, strictly given the kind of intelligence we are.

But if mathematical structures describe the nature of the universe — 3017amen
We don’t know that they do; we only know they describe the universe in such a way the universe becomes comprehensible to us, strictly given the kind of intelligence we are. — Mww

But what is mathematics itself? Is it an abstract construct, like other things from our consciousness?

But what is mathematics itself? — 3017amen

Simply put, I guess, mathematics is the science developed by reason out of the category of “quantity”, in response to observations in the world. If the categories are part of our innate rational constitution, as transcendental philosophy stipulates, then the ground of mathematical structures resides in us naturally.

Simply put, I guess, mathematics is the science developed by reason out of the category of “quantity”, in response to observations in the world. If the categories are part of our innate rational constitution, as transcendental philosophy stipulates, then the ground of mathematical structures resides in us naturally. — Mww

Okay, but if this innate sense of reason provides for an abstract objective reality, what is the nature of [this] our reality?

Sorry Mr. Wood, didn't mean to ignore you. Try this refresher:

if this innate sense of reason provides for an abstract objective reality, what is the nature of [this] our reality? — 3017amen

Why...or rather, how....would there be any difference between them, our reality or objective reality? Doesn’t matter what there is under any conditions whatsoever, reason is the one and only way a human is ever going to find out about it. Even accident or pure reflex as mere occasion for experience, still needs its possible understanding, which reverts right back to reason.

Do you not see the many and manifest problems with this video? It would be beyond tedious to lay them out, but it would be altogether appropriate to question nearly every line in it. But at least you have provided; thank you for that. But the thing itself is jr. high school material at best, nothing for grown-ups to pay any attention to or waste time on - except for cautionary purposes.

If you like we can start another thread and start to dismantle this piece of nonsense. Hmm. Question: do you need that?

Hmm. Question: do you need that? — tim wood

Since the OP is largely about metaphysics, I believe, to answer your question, the metaphysician does LOL: