is there a reason they average out, by chance, — flannel jesus
that the question is ill-formed — unenlightened
The general issue then is: are there regularities in nature or are we only imposing them to be able to better plan our lives. — Pez
That's what I suspected. But some critics seem to think Kant was talking about a supernatural Heavenly Realm, instead of a Hypothetical or Metaphorical state of perfection. Philosophical conjectures are often "beyond the scope of empirical investigation", but seldom beyond the range of rational analysis. Sadly, Philosophical Metaphors are all-too-often taken literally by those opposed to any preternatural implications.Note that it is ""Transcendental Idealism" not "Transcendent Idealism". The CPR is not about "Transcendent Idealism", as this would lie beyond what the human can cognitively grasp and would move into the realm of the unknowable. Not only beyond human experience but also beyond human reason, because beyond the scope of empirical investigation. Included would be such concepts as God and the soul. — RussellA
Thanks for the quote. As I indicated above, I assumed that Kant was writing as a reality-exploring philosopher --- searching for the boundaries of Epistemology --- not as a Christian apologist. However, some on TPF reject anything he says as-if it was religious propaganda. Yet he seems to rely on mundane reasoning, not on divine revelation, for his conclusion that there are some "things" (ding an sich) that are not accessible to "empirical investigation". And it's exactly those known-unknowns that intrigue me. :nerd:The CPR is not about religion or the spiritual realism, but is about what we can practically know about the world using reason and observation. — RussellA
Obviously, it would be impossible to prove anything beyond empirical evidence or the reach of reason. But what difference does it make to assert the "possibility" of such ding an sich? I'm guessing that he was responding to some aspect of Berkeley's Idealism. Ironically, Kant's own philosophy has the label "Idealism" pinned on it. So, he's not rejecting the general concept of Meta-Physical Reality, but some particular detail of Berkeley's formulation. Yes? :cool:Kant uses such a Transcendental Argument in his Refutation of Idealism in B275 against the Idealism of Berkeley in order not to prove that things exist independently of the mind, but only the possibility that things exist independently of the mind. — RussellA
Thanks again. That makes sense to me. Although it obviously doesn't compute for some Kant bashers. Taken literally, the title "Transcendental Idealism" seems to be directly opposite to "Immanent Realism". Was that effrontery intentional? :smile:"Transcendental Idealism" uses the Transcendental Argument to make sense of the world given our sensory experiences. — RussellA
Like, why is there attractive force between masses instead of repellant forces? — flannel jesus
I just Googled Bertrand Russell's statistical argument*1 to explain Nature's regularities, without recourse to a supernatural lawmaker. At first it seems to make empirical sense. But with afterthought, Nature still shows evidence of top-down statistical "laws"*2, begging the question of a Lawmaker or Regulator of Nature's "program", to direct its meandering median path, perhaps toward some future state.I think it's called "regression to the mean". If you toss a coin twice you might get heads twice, tails twice or one of each ht or one of each th. If you toss a coin a million times, you are almost certain to get within a hundred or so equal numbers of heads and tails, because 'chances are'. — unenlightened
2, begging the question of a Lawmaker or Regulator of Nature's "program", to direct its meandering median path, perhaps toward some future state. — Gnomon
Eg 2 hydrogen atoms consistently bond with 1 oxygen atom when they can because the stuff that makes these atoms up is defined, at it's very core, to behave in a particular way? — flannel jesus
you said there's no laws, only regression to the mean, — flannel jesus
But it would seem to me that, even if we're a little bit wrong, there's still *some underlying reason*. And I call that underlying reason a law. — flannel jesus
you said there's no laws, only regression to the mean,
— flannel jesus
This is what you said that I said. But it isn't what I said. I am not so dogmatic. — unenlightened
Nature does not conform to Laws.
Nature does whatever the fuck she wants, and laws have to learn to conform to her, if they know what's good for them. — unenlightened
is there a reason they average out, by chance,
— flannel jesus
I think it's called "regression to the mean". — unenlightened
Perhaps I'm misreading your words, I feel like they leave a lot of room for interpretation there. — flannel jesus
Actually, I think all the problems and confusions we have in math starts from what you mentioned. Math for humans, and I would dare to say for animals too even if they math is "nothing, one, two, many", has started from the necessity of counting things. And we have thus put this small part of math as to be the basis of math, as the initial axioms everything starts from.Naturally, the tendency is for humans to interest themselves particularly in the kind of maths that is instantiated in their world, and be less concerned with N dimensional hyperbolic manifolds and klein bottles and transfinite arithmetic etc. — unenlightened
That's the first type of law, not the second type. — flannel jesus
So in answer to your question, I wouldn't personally frame it as "obeying". Nature isn't obeying some laws defined from outside, rather nature IS those laws. There's not a separation between nature and the laws, our reality at its root is what it is because it is defined by those laws. — flannel jesus
Can't we just say that humans observe regularities and patterns in nature? — Tom Storm
You are certainly free to just say that, but some of us like to go on to think about what the reasons might be that we do observe those regularities. I respect if you're not interested in that question — flannel jesus
To what extent these regularities are a function of our cognitive apparatus or are in nature itself, I'm not sure we can say. Our physics and science are incomplete and our philosophical understandings of what humans bring to observation and the concomitant construction of what we call reality, are also partial. — Tom Storm
Perhaps Kant can help us? Or phenomenology? What methodology do you think you have access too that can answer the above and determine what direction this enquiry should take? Or do you think straightforward empiricism can resolve this matter? — Tom Storm
the key part.
To what extent these regularities are a function of our cognitive apparatus or are in nature itself, I'm not sure we can say. Our physics and science are incomplete and our philosophical understandings of what humans bring to observation and the concomitant construction of what we call reality, are also partial.
— Tom Storm — Tom Storm
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.