Geometry is the study of possible spatial relations. — Agustino
No, since space is a form of knowledge - that which makes knowledge and experience possible - there cannot be any spatial knowledge to be gained by experience (hence why geometry is necessarily synthetic a priori and never synthetic a posteriori - Kant was very clear about this). If knowledge of space is gained by experience then that which was supposed to make experience possible in the first place was not known by the very mind which structured experience according to it - that's a contradiction. — Agustino
Yes, as I said, back to Berkeley you goAll this is resolved if one thinks that time, space and causality originate in a Greater Mind and that there characteristics are only partially obvious to us. — John
Because space is an a priori form of our KNOWLEDGE. We know through space, hence space conditions our knowledge.So how can we presuppose that we can know all things about how space structure empirical experience? — John
But for example I believe in one substance because all other conceptions are incoherent. So it's not only empirical truths that I believe or those given by scriptural authority. I also believe in rational truths.The logical conclusion of that is that you should believe in nothing that is not either empirically given or given by scriptural authority. In which case, forget all (or at least most) of philosophy. — John
Well you can be mistaken in both believing or not believing but you have to choose one.I'm laughing because, if I don't understand something, I do not believe it to be true. — Heister Eggcart
Because space is an a priori form of our KNOWLEDGE. We know through space, hence space conditions our knowledge. — Agustino
What do you mean? Belief in itself is a truth claim isn't it? To believe something is to think it true.Belief doesn't require a truth claim. — Heister Eggcart
Why does space allow triangles to exist? Why isn't the nature of space such that triangles are impossible? — Agustino
-I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
And what determines the possibility of non-euclidean axioms (and Kant and Schopenhauer have both critiqued the notion of axiom actually) if not the nature of space itself? When we postulate axioms, don't we actually refer to a specific kind of space? — Agustino
>:O meaning? — Agustino
As I have said a million times, Non-Euclidean geometry does not refute the axiom that the shortest distance is the perpendicular - among many other axioms that aren't refuted. So you have to explain to me where does this axiom get its certainty from, because it seems that regardless how our space is, it can't be refuted. — Agustino
I'm sure it also determines how they appear...So space only determines that things are numerically distinct, not what they are — Thorongil
Yep, never disagreed on this.What determines what they are, i.e. what the essence of things is? The will. What determines what the will is? Nothing, for the will is groundless. — Thorongil
Well Tesla certainly didn't like Non-Euclidean geometry :P - but regardless, whether you call them attributes of space, or properties of space, it's the same thing really.I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
But amongst philosophers Orthodox Christians can be very different from each other. It's one thing to read Tolstoy, and a different thing to read, for example, Berdyaev. You'd claim that these two are also more heretical than they seem at first, and yet they are both Orthodox Christians.That people ought to take your declarations of being an orthodox Christian with a grain of salt. — Thorongil
Another thread!! :PHow is it that we know, with a very high degree of certainty, that there is an equal difference between one and two, two and three, three and four, etc.? Where do we derive this idea of equality? It seems that in all empirical observations we see no examples of such absolute equality. However, we seem to know with absolute certainty that there is an absolute equality with respect to the difference between the integers. — Metaphysician Undercover
But amongst philosophers Orthodox Christians can be very different from each other. It's one thing to read Tolstoy, and a different thing to read, for example, Berdyaev. You'd claim that these two are also more heretical than they seem at first, and yet they are both Orthodox Christians. — Agustino
What do you mean? Belief in itself is a truth claim isn't it? To believe something is to think it true. — Agustino
Why stop there? The fact that 3D Euclidean space allows for a plurality of objects is true, but Euclidean 1D space doesn't for example. So clearly the individuation and the extent to which it is possible is governed by the geometrical properties of the space in question. So why stop with just those properties that ensure individuation? In fact, you necessarily bring about all the others if you try to do that.Only if by "how" we mean that it determines that things appear in the plural. — Thorongil
One can believe something without claiming it to be the truth. — Heister Eggcart
How would you define believing something then?One can believe something without claiming it to be the truth. — Heister Eggcart
The latter is really just a degree of certainty or if not then it's just pure logical plausibility.Isn't it worth distinguishing between believing something to be true, and believing in the potential for something to be true? — Heister Eggcart
Why stop there? — Agustino
3D Euclidean space — Agustino
The thing though is that a lot of what you'd see as unorthodox wouldn't be perceived as unorthodox by other orthodox Orthodox Christians :P — Agustino
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.