Kant, Relativity and Transcendental Idealism

[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?

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.

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.

[AmericanKestrel]

Advaita philosophy asserts that the one single Consciousness that exists, and is all that exists, there is nothing else other than it, transcends time and space.

[Steve3007]

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?

These questions seem incoherent to me. I think it would be a good idea to read the paragraph back to yourself. Take the first sentence (i.e. the part up to the first period/full stop):

"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."

Can you try to write that more succinctly as a potentially answerable question? Perhaps it might be something like this:

"Is it reasonable to state that light travels at a finite speed and that we cannot ever travel at that speed ourselves?"

Is that something close to what you wanted to ask?

[3017Metaphysician]

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?

These questions seem incoherent to me. I think it would be a good idea to read the paragraph back to yourself. Take the first sentence (i.e. the part up to the first period/full stop):

"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."

Can you try to write that more succinctly as a potentially answerable question? Perhaps it might be something like this:

"Is it reasonable to state that light travels at a finite speed and that we cannot ever travel at that speed ourselves?"

Is that something close to what you wanted to ask?

Hi Steve!

Thanks for your contribution

Well, not really. We already know that it is reasonable to conclude we cannot travel at the speed of light. Yet, we know in theory (through relativity) that the speed of light exists. Thus is it reasonable to infer a kind of independent existence of some sort (where time stops)? Philosophically, (or otherwise) what kind of reality would this suggest?

There are many things to think about, one of which are the differences between temporal time and eternal time... (?).

For example, some philosophical examples of eternal time would be:

a) An unending stretch of time – everlastingness;

b) That which is entirely timeless; and

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

[3017Metaphysician]

Advaita philosophy asserts that the one single Consciousness that exists, and is all that exists, there is nothing else other than it, transcends time and space.

Hi AK! Thanks for your contribution.

In your view, just curious, would that be considered akin to perhaps certain phenomena relative to NDE studies/experiences? Alternatively, since
I am unfamiliar with that philosophy, I will have to study the Advaita Vedanta to see if there is any likeness there... .

Since Kant felt like our sensibility was only receptive, (much like our brains being a radio receiver/transmitter) and that the signals existed as a some thing-in-itself unknowable to us, beyond our understanding (noumena), I was wondering if there was some sort of connection... . In cognitive science we read things like: ...but they do suggest that NDEs might include contact with reality, even without normal heart or brain function, and that this contact may actually stretch beyond what we are capable of when our bodies are operating normally.

[AmericanKestrel]

Advaita philosophy asserts that the one single Consciousness that exists, and is all that exists, there is nothing else other than it, transcends time and space.

Hi AK! Thanks for your contribution.

In your view, just curious, would that be considered akin to perhaps certain phenomena relative to NDE studies/experiences? Alternatively, since
I am unfamiliar with that philosophy, I will have to study the Advaita Vedanta to see if there is any likeness there... .

Since Kant felt like our sensibility was only receptive, (much like our brains being a radio receiver/transmitter) and that the signals existed as a some thing-in-itself unknowable to us, beyond our understanding (noumena), I was wondering if there was some sort of connection... . In cognitive science we read things like: ...but they do suggest that NDEs might include contact with reality, even without normal heart or brain function, and that this contact may actually stretch beyond what we are capable of when our bodies are operating normally.

This might help:
https://www.advaita-vision.org/kant-advaita-1/

[Steve3007]

Hi Steve!

Thanks for your contribution

You're welcome.

Well, not really. We already know that it is reasonable to conclude we cannot travel at the speed of light.

Just to be clear on that point: We know that in the sense that it fits into a logically self-consistent set of laws (the laws of physics) which are based on patterns we've seen in our observations. Those laws predict that no object with mass can travel at or beyond that particular speed relative to another object with mass.

Yet, we know in theory (through relativity) that the speed of light exists.

This seems to me a slightly odd way to use the word "exists". I guess we could say that it exists in the same sense that other physical constants exist. It doesn't exist in the same sense that material objects exist. I think a materialist/physicalist might argue that it is not a real existent but is an abstract concept.

Thus is it reasonable to infer a kind of independent existence of some sort (where time stops)?...

Existence of what? In my usage, "existence" refers to the existential state of things; objects. So to say something like "there is an independent existence", as if existence is some kind of place, makes no sense to me.

...Philosophically, (or otherwise) what kind of reality would this suggest?

There are many things to think about, one of which are the differences between temporal time and eternal time... (?).

I don't know how you'd define those two types of time. As far as I can see, there is one type of time and it is defined as the thing that is measured by clocks, or, alternatively, it is defined as change in physical objects and in their interactions.

For example, some philosophical examples of eternal time would be:

a) An unending stretch of time – everlastingness;

b) That which is entirely timeless; and

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

To me, (a) is just normal time (there might be an unending sequence of changes or there might not) and (b) and (c) are self-contradictory.

[Steve3007]

(where time stops)

On this point, I think it's worth trying to be clear as to how the world appears to work (as expressed by the laws of physics, and in particular the theory of relativity). The idea of time stopping is incoherent. "Stop" is one of the words which describes an object's state of motion relative to another object. If I travel closer and closer to the speed of light relative to some other object, the clock which I'm carrying doesn't slow down or stop. It ticks away just as it always did. Time dilation is not about time, as some kind of universal, changing its speed. Time doesn't have a speed. Speed is distance divided by time. Relativistic time dilation is intimately connected to the fact that there is no universal absolute time and that time is what is measured by clocks. There is no universal clock. There are only particular clocks that are moving relative to each other, and there are observations of clocks that are moving with us and clocks that are moving differently to us.

If we're going to try to draw philosophical conclusions from something like Relativity, I think we first need to make sure we're reasonably clear, at least in general terms, what it says.

[3017Metaphysician]

Advaita philosophy asserts that the one single Consciousness that exists, and is all that exists, there is nothing else other than it, transcends time and space.

Hi AK! Thanks for your contribution.

In your view, just curious, would that be considered akin to perhaps certain phenomena relative to NDE studies/experiences? Alternatively, since
I am unfamiliar with that philosophy, I will have to study the Advaita Vedanta to see if there is any likeness there... .

Since Kant felt like our sensibility was only receptive, (much like our brains being a radio receiver/transmitter) and that the signals existed as a some thing-in-itself unknowable to us, beyond our understanding (noumena), I was wondering if there was some sort of connection... . In cognitive science we read things like: ...but they do suggest that NDEs might include contact with reality, even without normal heart or brain function, and that this contact may actually stretch beyond what we are capable of when our bodies are operating normally.

This might help:
https://www.advaita-vision.org/kant-advaita-1/

Very nice AK!

Thank you kindly for that. Of special importance to me was his distinction he made between Berkley's idealism and Kant's.

Also, the synthetic a priori, in itself, to this day, is still a mystery!

[3017Metaphysician]

Hi Steve!

Thanks for your contribution

You're welcome.

Well, not really. We already know that it is reasonable to conclude we cannot travel at the speed of light.

Just to be clear on that point: We know that in the sense that it fits into a logically self-consistent set of laws (the laws of physics) which are based on patterns we've seen in our observations. Those laws predict that no object with mass can travel at or beyond that particular speed relative to another object with mass.

Yet, we know in theory (through relativity) that the speed of light exists.

This seems to me a slightly odd way to use the word "exists". I guess we could say that it exists in the same sense that other physical constants exist. It doesn't exist in the same sense that material objects exist. I think a materialist/physicalist might argue that it is not a real existent but is an abstract concept.

Thus is it reasonable to infer a kind of independent existence of some sort (where time stops)?...

Existence of what? In my usage, "existence" refers to the existential state of things; objects. So to say something like "there is an independent existence", as if existence is some kind of place, makes no sense to me.

...Philosophically, (or otherwise) what kind of reality would this suggest?

There are many things to think about, one of which are the differences between temporal time and eternal time... (?).

I don't know how you'd define those two types of time. As far as I can see, there is one type of time and it is defined as the thing that is measured by clocks, or, alternatively, it is defined as change in physical objects and in their interactions.

For example, some philosophical examples of eternal time would be:

a) An unending stretch of time – everlastingness;

b) That which is entirely timeless; and

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

To me, (a) is just normal time (there might be an unending sequence of changes or there might not) and (b) and (c) are self-contradictory.

Thank you Steve!

My theory is just in it's initial stages, and I'm thinking through all the 'logical possibilities'. So I apologize if things are a bit convoluted right now. I'm researching the old block universe theory and other time paradox's. When you ask "Existence of what?', as an analogy, I can only imagine what existed before humans appeared on the scene. Obviously, there was some sort of independent existence within spacetime, even after the initial stages of the BB. It's just that we were not around to observe or experience it. So in that way, there is even a small notion of independent existence.

Totally thinking aloud... , or some Platonic realm of being, some mathematical abstract law of eternal time that always existed (in theory, prior to the BB-some thing started the BB). Similar to the idea that the laws of physics always existed v. human invention.

With respect to the speed of light, of course, in that realm of existing, material clocks would not work, nor would humans be able to work . Yet theoretically, there is still something and not nothing. I'm trying to think what would this something be... any ideas?

Again, sorry for the random thoughts... I appreciate you taking the time to offer contribution, thanks again.

[Steve3007]

Thank you Steve!

My theory is just in it's initial stages, and I'm thinking through all the 'logical possibilities'. So I apologize if things are a bit convoluted right now.

You're welcome, and no need to apologize for anything. I think a place like this is good for trying out embryonic ideas to see what other people think of them. So long as you're prepared for the possibility of some "robust" comments from some people from time to time!

I'm researching the old block universe theory and other time paradox's.

I don't think I'd call the concept of the block universe a paradox, but it's pros and cons have been briefly discussed in some other topics here.

When you ask "Existence of what?', as an analogy, I can only imagine what existed before humans appeared on the scene. Obviously, there was some sort of independent existence within spacetime, even after the initial stages of the BB. It's just that we were not around to observe or experience it. So in that way, there is even a small notion of independent existence.

Yes, I agree that things existed before humans did. But I see no connection between that fact and the speed of light.

With respect to the speed of light, of course, in that realm of existing, material clocks would not work, nor would humans be able to work . Yet theoretically, there is still something and not nothing. I'm trying to think what would this something be... any ideas?

I wouldn't call the speed of light a "realm of existing". It's just a physical constant. It's not that material clocks and humans (and other things with mass) "would not work" at the speed of light. It's that they cannot reach that speed. For some reason you seem to be thinking of the speed of light as a place, or a "realm". A physical constant isn't a place or a realm.

[3017Metaphysician]

Thank you Steve!

My theory is just in it's initial stages, and I'm thinking through all the 'logical possibilities'. So I apologize if things are a bit convoluted right now.

You're welcome, and no need to apologize for anything. I think a place like this is good for trying out embryonic ideas to see what other people think of them. So long as you're prepared for the possibility of some "robust" comments from some people from time to time!

I'm researching the old block universe theory and other time paradox's.

I don't think I'd call the concept of the block universe a paradox, but it's pros and cons have been briefly discussed in some other topics here.

When you ask "Existence of what?', as an analogy, I can only imagine what existed before humans appeared on the scene. Obviously, there was some sort of independent existence within spacetime, even after the initial stages of the BB. It's just that we were not around to observe or experience it. So in that way, there is even a small notion of independent existence.

Yes, I agree that things existed before humans did. But I see no connection between that fact and the speed of light.

With respect to the speed of light, of course, in that realm of existing, material clocks would not work, nor would humans be able to work . Yet theoretically, there is still something and not nothing. I'm trying to think what would this something be... any ideas?

I wouldn't call the speed of light a "realm of existing". It's just a physical constant. It's not that material clocks and humans (and other things with mass) "would not work" at the speed of light. It's that they cannot reach that speed. For some reason you seem to be thinking of the speed of light as a place, or a "realm". A physical constant isn't a place or a realm.

Thank you Steve for your welcoming thoughts... ! I am still working on this, and hope to at least respond to your concerns next week. Have a great weekend my friend!!

[3017Metaphysician]

Thank you Steve!

My theory is just in it's initial stages, and I'm thinking through all the 'logical possibilities'. So I apologize if things are a bit convoluted right now.

You're welcome, and no need to apologize for anything. I think a place like this is good for trying out embryonic ideas to see what other people think of them. So long as you're prepared for the possibility of some "robust" comments from some people from time to time!

I'm researching the old block universe theory and other time paradox's.

I don't think I'd call the concept of the block universe a paradox, but it's pros and cons have been briefly discussed in some other topics here.

When you ask "Existence of what?', as an analogy, I can only imagine what existed before humans appeared on the scene. Obviously, there was some sort of independent existence within spacetime, even after the initial stages of the BB. It's just that we were not around to observe or experience it. So in that way, there is even a small notion of independent existence.

Yes, I agree that things existed before humans did. But I see no connection between that fact and the speed of light.

With respect to the speed of light, of course, in that realm of existing, material clocks would not work, nor would humans be able to work . Yet theoretically, there is still something and not nothing. I'm trying to think what would this something be... any ideas?

I wouldn't call the speed of light a "realm of existing". It's just a physical constant. It's not that material clocks and humans (and other things with mass) "would not work" at the speed of light. It's that they cannot reach that speed. For some reason you seem to be thinking of the speed of light as a place, or a "realm". A physical constant isn't a place or a realm.

Hi Steve:

I'm gathering information from various sources (Kant/Einstein Block Theory/Davies theoretical physics) and am just going to post some sound bites or bullet points that will allow me to understand a theory of transcendent/independent existence. This in turn may support the notion of a logically possible world or realm of existence, of some kind. The bullet points below is just the beginning stages of information gathering. This is much like gathering hand tools to build a project. Again, a work in progress, in real time:

1.) Assume the world has no beginning in time.
2.) It follows that up to the present, an eternity has elapsed.
3.) This means an infinite number of successive events has occurred, i.e. an infinite series has been completed.
4.) According to the “transcendental concept of infinitude”, an infinite series can never be completed through successive synthesis.
5.) Therefore the concept of an infinite series of events in the world that have passed away (been completed) is self-contradictory.
6.) So there must have been a beginning of the world in time, a first event.


1.) Assume the world has a beginning in time.
2.) The concept of a temporal beginning presupposes a preceding time before the thing exists.
3.) Therefore it is necessary to think of an empty time before the world existed.
4.) But such points of time cannot be distinguished from one another.
5.) A world cannot meaningfully be said to have come into existence at one time rather than another time if both times are empty.
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.

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.

Of course, things are way more complicated than that. Travelling in time is clearly much more difficult than travelling in space. It might be very technologically costly to time travel, so perhaps it's not really something that, practically speaking, we can do.
But it's certainly possible.

We already know that travelling very fast will result in time dilation, so we know it's possible to travel into the future just by travelling very fast.
We can travel quite a way into the future if we can travel at some reasonable percentage of the speed of light. We also know how to travel into the past. We can do that by using wormholes, which are short cuts through space-time.

• The general sense of these words are:
• Ideality: mind-dependence; in the mind (in uns)
• Reality: mind-independence; external to the mind (ausser uns)

The empirical sense of these words are:
• Ideality: private data of an individual mind
• Reality: intersubjective spatial-temporal objects of human experience

The transcendental (the philosophical reflection of experience) sense of these words are:
• Ideality: universal, necessary, a priori conditions of human knowledge, e.g. space and time, the forms of sensibility
• Reality: referring to an independence to any appeal to these conditions

….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.

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe”, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.



Steve, just based upon certain definition standards, whether it's parsing the concept of infinite regress/causation (infinite tower of turtles or one super turtle) or the concept of something and not nothing, philosophically, we cannot use a 'unity of opposite' axiom to justify that there was ever no-thing that existed (the opposite of something is nothing; hot/cold, happy/sad, ad nauseum).

I guess we could say that no-thing existed at one time, but that would suggest understanding existence itself is still outside the domains of human rationality and/or logic. For instance, if the laws of the universe existed before the universe came into being (BB), what are these abstract metaphysical laws that confer no Darwinian biological survival advantages?

In the alternative, if these laws are just random, meaningless, or even absurd, that would yet still support the notion that understanding existence and its properties lies outside the usual categories of rational human thought. Hence we are still left with some concept of transcendence or independent existence. Is that concept itself, rational or irrational?

[Steve3007]

I'm gathering information from various sources (Kant/Einstein Block Theory/Davies theoretical physics) and am just going to post some sound bites or bullet points that will allow me to understand a theory of transcendent/independent existence. This in turn may support the notion of a logically possible world or realm of existence, of some kind. The bullet points below is just the beginning stages of information gathering. This is much like gathering hand tools to build a project. Again, a work in progress, in real time:

OK thanks. When it comes to long posts containing multiple ideas and points, it's always difficult to know the best way to respond to them. A lot of people quote the entire post and say something more or less irrelevant underneath. I guess that would be the worst way! But sadly it's what seems to happen most of the time. A better way is to read the post, try to assess what the single over-arching points is, and address that. I think that's a good thing to do, but difficult and prone to misunderstanding what that over-arching point actually is. A third way is to try to deal with individual points in the post one at a time, more or less in order. That's what I usually try to do. But I've found that it's often best to start off by doing that with just a sample of the points, at least initially. Otherwise, the number of topical strands in the conversation often quickly balloons out of control.

So that's what I'll try to do! I'll deal with just a few points at a time.

[Steve3007]

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!