Kant, Relativity and Transcendental Idealism

[Terrapin Station]

1.) Assume the world has no beginning in time.

or

1.) Assume the world has a beginning in time.

How about, "The beginning of the world is the beginning of time"?


Also, in the first post, you say, "We are not able to actually experience [time]." Time is simply change, including motion. We experience that regularly.

[3017Metaphysician]

1.) Assume the world has no beginning in time.

or

1.) Assume the world has a beginning in time.

How about, "The beginning of the world is the beginning of time"?


Also, in the first post, you say, "We are not able to actually experience [time]." Time is simply change, including motion. We experience that regularly.

Hi TP!

Thanks for your thought there... . With respect to your second point, I was referring to time travel, in that case, we don't get to experience the speed of light. That seems to suggest something that theoretically exists yet we are not able to actually live in it or experience it. Otherwise, the actual experience of time itself is certainly, illusionary. The simple example is the paradox of traveling from the east coast to west. When we loose/gain time, we don't get to have it back...not to mention what sliver of time represents the present...not to mention when I think time changes, but other things don't change at the same rate in time (or at all), ad nauseum. Anyway, you get the idea I hope.

To your first point/question, unfortunately, that only begs more questions concerning infinite causation. (I may not be understanding the question though... .) For example, did something exist outside of time to cause time itself(?). The common idea is eternal time v. temporal time. Kind of like the idea that the timeless laws of the universe (metaphysics/mathematics) exist, yet describe temporal existence (our existence as we know it and live in it).

I think eternity has at least three interpretations:

a) An unending stretch of time – everlastingness;

b) That which is entirely timeless; and

c) That which includes time but somehow also transcends it.


Perhaps, it all returns us back the mystery associated with the existence of the laws themselves, as they are used to theorize the changing universe so effectively. Hence:

….laws of initial conditions strongly support the Platonic idea that laws are “out there” transcending the physical universe. It is sometimes argued that the laws of physics came into being with the universe. If that was so, then those laws cannot explain the origin of the universe, because those laws would not exist until the universe existed. This is most forcefully obvious when it comes to a law of initial conditions, because such a law purports to explain precisely how the universe came to exist in the form that it does.


Lot's of different things there I know....just putting it out there (no pun intended). Accordingly, if there is something that catches your eye, please feel free to poke holes!

[3017Metaphysician]

1.) Assume the world has no beginning in time.

OK. To me, this would mean that there are an infinite number of events, or changes, in the world. (By "world" I presume we mean "universe" and not just "earth"!)

2.) It follows that up to the present, an eternity has elapsed.

Yes.

3.) This means an infinite number of successive events has occurred, i.e. an infinite series has been completed.

Yes.

4.) According to the “transcendental concept of infinitude”, an infinite series can never be completed through successive synthesis.

I'm not sure what this means, so you'll have to "unpack" it for me, or I'll have to look it up. But clearly as soon as we start talking about infinites we have to be mindful of the fact that, by definition, we're talking about an abstract concept that can never be physically realized. So we shouldn't be surprised if our language is inadequate. For example, the expression "an infinite series can never be completed" is simply the same as saying "an infinite series of events take infinite time to complete" because "never" is another term for "not in finite time".

5.) Therefore the concept of an infinite series of events in the world that have passed away (been completed) is self-contradictory.

I don't see it as self-contradictory but would have to hear/read more about this “transcendental concept of infinitude” first.

6.) So there must have been a beginning of the world in time, a first event.

There could have been, yes.

1.) Assume the world has a beginning in time.

OK.

2.) The concept of a temporal beginning presupposes a preceding time before the thing exists.

I disagree. As I've said, in my usage, time is simply change. Another way I put that is that time is the quantity that is measured by clocks. Thinking that there is a time before the first change is, to me, a reification fallacy in that it takes an abstraction from individual instances of change, calls it time, and unjustifiably extrapolates beyond the changes from which it is abstracted.

3.) Therefore it is necessary to think of an empty time before the world existed.

For the reason given about, I disagree that that's necessary.

4.) But such points of time cannot be distinguished from one another.

See above.

5.) A world cannot meaningfully be said to have come into existence at one time rather than another time if both times are empty.

I don't know what you mean by that.

6.) So we cannot meaningfully say the world came into being in time at all, therefore the world is infinite with respect to past time.

I disagree with this for the reasons given above.

If time is just another dimension, a lot like the spatial dimensions, does that mean we can travel in time?
The short answer is yes.

In my view, the concept of dimension is an abstraction and, as described above, has a tendency, if we're not careful, to lead us into reification fallacies and unwarranted extrapolations.



I'll leave it there for now!

Hi Steve!

Thanks you for taking the time (no pun intended) to critique things. That so-called 'enumerated model' about the philosophy of time/cosmology was a part of someone's synopsis of Kant's transcendental idealism. In any case, let's maybe take one point at a time:

I'll go ahead and share my thoughts on your point about reification, concerning something 'concrete' existing outside of time (at least that's how I interpret your concern). I can think of at least a few intriguing points to somehow reconcile:

1. We know that time itself is metaphysically abstract and illusionary, particularly the present (how big a slice of 'now' represents the present & physical equations describing/calculating time/distance treat past, present, future the same).
2. We know that explanations/descriptions of the universe before the BB involve metaphysically abstract laws (mathematics).
3. We know abstract conceptions of infinity exist (eternal inflation, axiom of infinity, etc.).
4. We know from relativity that temporal time becomes timeless at the speed of light.
5. Philosophically/Cosmologically, the term or concept of transcendence exists primarily because we cannot escape the idea of there existing something and not nothing (Logically speaking, there can be no perfect state of nothing that is not in fact something.)

With that, first, let's see if we can agree that there is something metaphysical (mathematics itself) that exists outside of time (the Cosmological laws of the Universe).

Yes or no (?)

My answer is yes for many reasons, one of which I think many could reasonably agree with here: ….laws of initial conditions strongly support the Platonic idea that laws are “out there” transcending the physical universe. It is sometimes argued that the laws of physics came into being with the universe. If that was so, then those laws cannot explain the origin of the universe, because those laws would not exist until the universe existed. This is most forcefully obvious when it comes to a law of initial conditions, because such a law purports to explain precisely how the universe came to exist in the form that it does.


An ancillary question to that would be, do these laws become transcendent by virtue of there mere existence, even in the context of Cosmology(?)

For obvious reasons, my answer is yes (it would be a given/logically necessary if they are anthropic).

The final question(s) would be your concern about reification, is human biological existence itself (conscious existence/self-awareness) exclusively a concrete or abstract existence? And do abstract (mathematical) structures (Structuralism) themselves, confer any biological Darwinian survival advantages?

I'll leave that open for discussion for now...

[Steve3007]

Hi again 3017Metaphysician. Having had a read through your latest post, I think the best thing for me to do first is try to clear up what I meant when I talked about reification with respect to time. This doesn't look quite like what I meant:

I'll go ahead and share my thoughts on your point about reification, concerning something 'concrete' existing outside of time (at least that's how I interpret your concern).

Here's what I said again:

In my usage, time is simply change. Another way I put that is that time is the quantity that is measured by clocks. Thinking that there is a time before the first change is, to me, a reification fallacy in that it takes an abstraction from individual instances of change, calls it time, and unjustifiably extrapolates beyond the changes from which it is abstracted.

The reification fallacy here would be a bit like this: We observe a whole load of objects sitting in a row. We notice that they're in a row, so we draw a line through the objects to represent the row in the abstract. We extend the line beyond the row of objects. We then act as though the line were an object itself (that's the reification fallacy), we note that it extends (possibly to infinity) beyond the objects, and we start talking about "objects before objects".

I don't know if that helps. The objects here represent the individual instances of change. The line represents time when we see it as an abstraction.

Talking about time as if it's some kind of real (as opposed to abstract) medium in which those instances of change sit, and then, as a result of that, talking about a time before the first instance of change, is the reification fallacy. There is nothing real except for those instances of real changes. If we confine ourselves to defining time as those instances of change, then we're keeping time real. If we decide to create an abstraction (like that line) to represent those instances of change (like the line representing the row of objects) that's fine, so long as we remember that we've now created an abstract concept of time. It would be wrong to forget that and treat the abstraction as if it were real.

Probably too longwinded and explanation, but there you are.

[3017Metaphysician]

Hi again 3017Metaphysician. Having had a read through your latest post, I think the best thing for me to do first is try to clear up what I meant when I talked about reification with respect to time. This doesn't look quite like what I meant:

I'll go ahead and share my thoughts on your point about reification, concerning something 'concrete' existing outside of time (at least that's how I interpret your concern).

Here's what I said again:

In my usage, time is simply change. Another way I put that is that time is the quantity that is measured by clocks. Thinking that there is a time before the first change is, to me, a reification fallacy in that it takes an abstraction from individual instances of change, calls it time, and unjustifiably extrapolates beyond the changes from which it is abstracted.

The reification fallacy here would be a bit like this: We observe a whole load of objects sitting in a row. We notice that they're in a row, so we draw a line through the objects to represent the row in the abstract. We extend the line beyond the row of objects. We then act as though the line were an object itself (that's the reification fallacy), we note that it extends (possibly to infinity) beyond the objects, and we start talking about "objects before objects".

I don't know if that helps. The objects here represent the individual instances of change. The line represents time when we see it as an abstraction.

Talking about time as if it's some kind of real (as opposed to abstract) medium in which those instances of change sit, and then, as a result of that, talking about a time before the first instance of change, is the reification fallacy. There is nothing real except for those instances of real changes. If we confine ourselves to defining time as those instances of change, then we're keeping time real. If we decide to create an abstraction (like that line) to represent those instances of change (like the line representing the row of objects) that's fine, so long as we remember that we've now created an abstract concept of time. It would be wrong to forget that and treat the abstraction as if it were real.

Probably too longwinded and explanation, but there you are.

Steve!

No, thank you Steve. That really helped. You've enlightened me there, that makes sense. I'm wondering if we could also use this example of abstraction that say, describes physical matter existing in the engineering field. Say in structural engineering, I use a formula to compute the size of a beam(s) and columns that go into supporting an entre building/high-rise. We know that we don't need that way of abstraction to build the building (the pyramids), but it helps us in our modern era for obvious reasons of replication and understanding (manufacturing, reading plans and specifications, etc.). And we know by looking at the building (or a car or some other object), therein lies a mathematical formula that was used in its design. Similarly, dare I say, the 'design' of the universe (for a lack of a better phrase) seems to be approached with that same sense of logic (obvious anthropic implications here). But I use the word 'logic' there because the laws themselves, are based upon abstract mathematical formulas that are not only abstract (as we've been discussing), but 'objectively' logical also (quite a paradox I think).

Much the same way, we don't need to know the logical laws of gravity to evade or dodge falling objects in the jungle, we have this abstract method (the mathematical laws of gravity once again) that can explain/describe that phenomena. And that leads to the laws themselves, transcendence, conscious existence and the like. To that end, any thoughts on the concept of transcendence at all?

In the alternative, any thoughts on things that are concrete and tangible, yet seem illusionary? In other words, thoughts about things that exist but are not concrete as concrete (an existence or sense experience beyond the normal or physical level) ? (I can think of numerous things like gravity itself, QM fields, perception of time itself, human sentience, aesthetic philosophy, math, music, one's own Will, and just general information that is out there...).

Anyway Steve, in the 'spirit' of transcendence, any and all thoughts are welcome there... . I think its fair to say once we open the can of describing a world full of mathematics, we cannot escape these questions of abstract existence or transcendence of some sort. But I could be using the term transcendence too loosely… .

[Sculptor1]

Hello fellow Metaphysicians!

I'm working on part of a theory, and need some help. Much like Kant, in trying to conceive of a noumenal realm of independent existence, I have a transcendental inquiry, as he might posit:

Is it reasonable (treating like cases likely and different cases differently) to infer if we understand within temporal time itself, that the speed of light exists (eternity/time stops) but we are not able to actually experience it or travel in it (otherwise we would explode), does this in itself imply another realm of existence. If it does, what kind of 'existence' does this involve? What kind of reality is this?

Kant was never positing different realms of existence in any sense.
We all live in the same noumenal world, but viw perception (which is limited) we are only able to apprehend the Phenomena. It might be fair to say that our perceptual potential is a filter through which we may take glimpses of the noumenal world.
Kant's application of Noumenon and phenomenon is about his enquiries into epistemology, primarily. And was a response to the Empiricists; B, H &L.
Time for Kant was like space, the fundements of perception; the framework upon which we realy for ANY perception. They are not leaned through experience but are innate intuitions which make perception possible.
I think Einstein might have been inclined to give light the same quality in an objective way, but Kant as far as I know did not imbue light with any special quality.

Noumenon: The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us.

Time: The ostensible experience of temporal flow is an illusion. All we ever actually experience is the present snapshot, which entails a timescape of memories and imaginings analogous to the landscape of valley and mountains. Everything else is a story. The implications of this realization for physics and philosophy are profound.

Where are you getting this? It's not Kantian as far as I know

Also, since the perception of time is paradoxical in its explanation & experience (experiencing the past, present, future), and the speed of light is simply theoretical, is time itself transcendent? Meaning, is it yet another abstract metaphysical structure form reality?

I appreciate any and all thought.

I do not think the percetion of time is paradoxical. What do you mean by that. And, again, are you talking about Kant or your own view?

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello fellow Metaphysicians!

I'm working on part of a theory, and need some help. Much like Kant, in trying to conceive of a noumenal realm of independent existence, I have a transcendental inquiry, as he might posit:

Is it reasonable (treating like cases likely and different cases differently) to infer if we understand within temporal time itself, that the speed of light exists (eternity/time stops) but we are not able to actually experience it or travel in it (otherwise we would explode), does this in itself imply another realm of existence. If it does, what kind of 'existence' does this involve? What kind of reality is this?

Kant was never positing different realms of existence in any sense.
We all live in the same noumenal world, but viw perception (which is limited) we are only able to apprehend the Phenomena. It might be fair to say that our perceptual potential is a filter through which we may take glimpses of the noumenal world.
Kant's application of Noumenon and phenomenon is about his enquiries into epistemology, primarily. And was a response to the Empiricists; B, H &L.
Time for Kant was like space, the fundements of perception; the framework upon which we realy for ANY perception. They are not leaned through experience but are innate intuitions which make perception possible.
I think Einstein might have been inclined to give light the same quality in an objective way, but Kant as far as I know did not imbue light with any special quality.

Noumenon: The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us.

Time: The ostensible experience of temporal flow is an illusion. All we ever actually experience is the present snapshot, which entails a timescape of memories and imaginings analogous to the landscape of valley and mountains. Everything else is a story. The implications of this realization for physics and philosophy are profound.

Where are you getting this? It's not Kantian as far as I know

Also, since the perception of time is paradoxical in its explanation & experience (experiencing the past, present, future), and the speed of light is simply theoretical, is time itself transcendent? Meaning, is it yet another abstract metaphysical structure form reality?

I appreciate any and all thought.

I do not think the percetion of time is paradoxical. What do you mean by that. And, again, are you talking about Kant or your own view?

The noumenal realm was obviously from Kant, right? In layman's terms, noumenon is a concept that follows and/or is the antecedent to phenomenon (sense experience). Meaning, if we knew the true nature of reality (how to make our existence/consciousness and how it came to be), the concept of noumenon from self-aware beings would not be logically necessary to posit. In the alternative, think of noumenon as the causational super-turtle

Time is paradoxical is numerous ways. Consider the simple feeling or perception of time when one is preoccupied with things and how time is perceived to go faster. Conversely, consider how time is perceived when there is no-thing to do. Consider time traveling from east/west and losing or gaining an hour, you don't get to have the lost time back. Consider what is considered 'now'. what comprises now? Consider when one is thinking, time changes, but other things in reality don't change, or don't change at the same rate. Consider the laws of the universe are unchanging laws/truths (mathematics), but causation itself (a causational world of contingency) requires change/time to exist. There is much more, but monder those thoughts a bit... .

This may help as a starter:

https://youtu.be/eTASJHK-jew

[Sculptor1]

Hello fellow Metaphysicians!

I'm working on part of a theory, and need some help. Much like Kant, in trying to conceive of a noumenal realm of independent existence, I have a transcendental inquiry, as he might posit:

Is it reasonable (treating like cases likely and different cases differently) to infer if we understand within temporal time itself, that the speed of light exists (eternity/time stops) but we are not able to actually experience it or travel in it (otherwise we would explode), does this in itself imply another realm of existence. If it does, what kind of 'existence' does this involve? What kind of reality is this?

Kant was never positing different realms of existence in any sense.
We all live in the same noumenal world, but viw perception (which is limited) we are only able to apprehend the Phenomena. It might be fair to say that our perceptual potential is a filter through which we may take glimpses of the noumenal world.
Kant's application of Noumenon and phenomenon is about his enquiries into epistemology, primarily. And was a response to the Empiricists; B, H &L.
Time for Kant was like space, the fundements of perception; the framework upon which we realy for ANY perception. They are not leaned through experience but are innate intuitions which make perception possible.
I think Einstein might have been inclined to give light the same quality in an objective way, but Kant as far as I know did not imbue light with any special quality.

Noumenon: The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us.

Time: The ostensible experience of temporal flow is an illusion. All we ever actually experience is the present snapshot, which entails a timescape of memories and imaginings analogous to the landscape of valley and mountains. Everything else is a story. The implications of this realization for physics and philosophy are profound.

Where are you getting this? It's not Kantian as far as I know

Also, since the perception of time is paradoxical in its explanation & experience (experiencing the past, present, future), and the speed of light is simply theoretical, is time itself transcendent? Meaning, is it yet another abstract metaphysical structure form reality?

I appreciate any and all thought.

I do not think the percetion of time is paradoxical. What do you mean by that. And, again, are you talking about Kant or your own view?

The noumenal realm was obviously from Kant, right? In layman's terms, noumenon is a concept that follows and/or is the antecedent to phenomenon (sense experience). Meaning, if we knew the true nature of reality (how to make our existence/consciousness and how it came to be), the concept of noumenon from self-aware beings would not be logically necessary to posit. In the alternative, think of noumenon as the causational super-turtle

I was not asking what Kant meant by noumenon, I thought it would be obvious from my post that I knew that.
Offering Noumenon as a causation superturtle is off topic.

Time is paradoxical is numerous ways. Consider the simple feeling or perception of time when one is preoccupied with things and how time is perceived to go faster. Conversely, consider how time is perceived when there is no-thing to do. Consider time traveling from east/west and losing or gaining an hour, you don't get to have the lost time back. Consider what is considered 'now'. what comprises now? Consider when one is thinking, time changes, but other things in reality don't change, or don't change at the same rate. Consider the laws of the universe are unchanging laws/truths (mathematics), but causation itself (a causational world of contingency) requires change/time to exist. There is much more, but monder those thoughts a bit... .

This may help as a starter:

TIme is not paradoxical is the whole point here. The phenomenon of time is how we experience it, so we obvious should expect it to be subjective. I would not call it a paradox, since we normally expect our perceptions to differ from the objective world.
I suppose an objecrivist, or naive realist thinking that there is no gap between what he see and reality might fond it all a bit paradoxical that a book he is enjoying seem to make the time whizz by, or that watching a kettle boil take "forever".
I asked in case that was anything more in your statement that that. I seems not.

Perhaps we need to move on a bit, since I am fully aware of the basic foundations of Kant's epistemology,