But it was used to show Leibniz was wrong. All relational properties of a left hand and a right hand are the same. Still they are different. — Hillary

I think Leibniz is right. He stated a principle of relativity Einstein demonstrated to contemporary physicists. Again, the left and right thing would be based on an absolute measure of space.

think Leibniz is right. He stated a principle of relativity Einstein demonstrated to contemporary physicists. Again, the left and right thing would be based on an absolute measure of space. — Jackson

Leibniz didn't use relativity as Einstein did. The relation between objects stays the same fir every observer in Leibniz' view, contrary to Einstein's. And Kant proved him wrong with the glove. A relational view denies the difference between left and right.

Leibniz didn't use relativity as Einstein did. — Hillary

Leibniz explicitly said time and space are relative and not absolute as Newton stated.

Again, I seriously have no idea what the glove thing is. I've heard others say it and it means nothing to me. A glove is about human anatomy. What does that have to do with the structure of the universe?

:up:

The relation between objects stays the same fir every observer in Leibniz' view, — Hillary

No.

Exactly. You gave no argument. — Jackson

Trust me Jackson, 180 Proof is clueless about Kant. His Wiki is the full extent of it.

Trust me Jackson, 180 Proof is clueless about Kant. His Wiki is the full extent of it. — Constance

Anyone citing wiki for philosophy should not be discussing philosophy.

Leibniz explicitly said time and space are relative and not absolute as Newton stated. — Jackson

What did he mean by that?

What did he mean by that? — Hillary

Exactly what Einstein meant. There is no absolute measure of time or space.

The relation between objects stays the same fir every observer in Leibniz' view,
— Hillary

No. — Jackson

How, according to Leibniz, are the relations of the parts of a goive, damned, a glove! different for you and me?

How, according to Leibniz, are the relations of the parts of a goive, damned, a glove! different for you and me? — Hillary

What does human anatomy have to do with the structure of the universe?

Exactly what Einstein meant. — Jackson

Not so sure. The distance between objects varies, according to L?

Not so sure. The distance between objects varies, according to L? — Hillary

Conceptually. Like I said, Leibniz did not present mathematical demonstrations.

How, according to Leibniz, are the relations of the parts of a goive, damned, a glove! different for you and me?
— Hillary

What does human anatomy have to do with the structure of the universe? — Jackson

L says the relations between the parts are dependent in the observer. So how does this apply to a glove? It fits for you but not for me?

Conceptually. Like I said, Leibniz did not present mathematical demonstrations. — Jackson

Space is subjective?

L says the relations between the parts are dependent in the observer. So how does this apply to a glove? It fits for you but not for me? — Hillary

I genuinely have no idea what the glove thing is supposed to mean.

Space is subjective? — Hillary

Relational. No such things as things occurring in space for Leibniz.

It's my question. If the relation between It's parts, as L defines space, is different for two observers then would they be different gloves for each?

It's my question. If the relation between It's parts, as L defines space, is different for two observers then would they be different gloves for each? — Hillary

If the glove does not fit you have to acquit. Same realm.

Relational. No such things as things occurring in space for Leibniz. — Jackson

Then Einstein thought differently. E saw space as really existing with objects in it. And space between them.

Then Einstein thought differently. E saw space as really existing with objects in it. And space between them. — Hillary

Ok.

If the glove does not fit you have to acquit. Same realm. — Jackson

So for a moving observer the glove might have different relations?

Ok — Jackson

What then did you mean with the comparison between L and E?

What then did you mean with the comparison between L and E? — Hillary

I said it already.

That the noumon can't be known is questionable. — Hillary

Possibly, of course. Just not as Kant’s noumenon.

Possibly, of course. Just not as Kant’s noumenon — Mww

Of course. But as the noumenon can become part of us, simply by litterally eating it, it can turn to phenomenon. Kant tells us that das Ding an Sich can't be known. Which would imply we can't know ourselves, which for some might be the case though.

Edible noumenon. Guarantee that won’t sell. Hell...couldn’t even give it away. I mean....how would it be packaged? Pretty hard to shrink wrap something impossible to perceive, right?

Isn't noumenon contained in food? You are what you eat.

What then did you mean with the comparison between L and E?
— Hillary

I said it already. — Jackson

Okay, but their relativisms are different.

Okay, but their relativism is a different one. — Hillary

Leibniz:
"As for my own opinion, I have said more than once, that I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is, that I hold it to be an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions. (Third Paper, paragraph 4; G VII.363/Alexander 25–26)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/#LeiSpaTimSec