Essence of Apriori

[Totenkindly]

My pants just got wet

You can borrow my blow dryer.



.... sorry for the distraction, please get back to the philosophical banter.

 

[Mycroft]

Jennifer, I hope you aren't sincere in the statement that philosophy is "banter".

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Again, it seems that your theory posits that life arose as a result of rules that can't exist without living creatures to "impose" them upon the infinite!

No, it does not. Life is a concept of the phenomenal world as Kant calls it, not the noumenal. The infinite realm has nothing at all to do with this.

 

[Venom]

Isaac Newton thought that the universe functions like a simple mechanism. A causes B, B causes C, and C caused D. His view was the most intuitive, or that we are part of the big mechanism in the external world, and what we observe around us, is the external world itself, which is as real as it could be. Hume, though pointed out, quite correctly that what we know is that our sensations deliver information to us that we have a hunch has something to do with the external world, yet we do not have any reason to believe that this hunch is correct.

We may yet discover rules that direct Quantum mechanics in deterministic ways, this would lead us back to a mechanistic universe.

also, it only makes sense to talk about this world as an illusion if you have some other world in mind. if we can never perceive this "true reality" then this world would for all intensive purposes BE our "reality". There must be some fundemental difference between the two to really make any sense of alternate and 'true realities'.

We merely know that we have access to the information the senses gave us, but if the senses have collected the information adequately. Kant has suggested that it is not the case as Newton thought, that we are in the world, but the world is in us which is plausible. Newton’s intuitive worldview is manifestly untenable. Newton’s world is finite because it has many attributes. It means it has been created by another entity, because a finite entity is by definition limited. Yet what created this one another entity, another entity? We shall proceed ad infinitum seeking the first cause without having found one. This leads to the absurdity that something came from nothing. Such a thesis could not be true.

causation (in this case, entity --> entity) only makes sense "IN" time. we have no reason to think that holds true 'outside' of time (the multi-verse 'bubble' itself). second, we dont need an infinite regress, chaos can arise out of order. if we roll 6 dice 50,000 times, we have a greater than 5/6 chance of getting 1 2 3 4 5 6 eventually. its almost inevitable that either smolen selection or chaos inflationary properties could be reached. the chaos could be vast enough that its practically infinite to us, though not actually infinite (though it all could be infinite, no way to tell right now). chaos makes the most sense as the originator because its the simplest entity imaginable (with no order) and it doesn't need a cause. the first thing will always be a "just was", because there is nothing happening before it (causation only makes sense IN time, once time has started). there cant be anything that sits before the timeline to "cause" because then that thing would be outside of time.

Therefore Newton’s claim that the world of our finite experience is as real as it gets must be false. If we posit that the ultimate reality is infinite, we shall have an opportunity to explain the first cause of the universe. What is infinite is by definition without limits. Therefore what is infinite is all that exists. Thus it by definition has no limits, that means no constrains of time. Therefore it has always existed and will always exist. It also by definition has no creator because it is all that exists. Our world is not infinite, therefore it is an illusion. It is however, our apriori representation of the infinite realm. Because our mind is unable to properly process the infinite realm, it unconsciously represents it in terms of what it can properly process. Hence, this is a clear-cut example of an apriori faculty within the human mind. When a baby is born, it unconsciously translates the infinite realm into finite terms and as a result of this envisages the world as we know it. This is not to be counted as knowledge because the representation of the finite world as we experience is unconscious rather than conscious. In other words, this merely represents the opportunity one has to experience the external world directly. We can conclude that three entities are completely apriori, the vision of the external world or the opportunity to experience it, our physical functions and the potential to function in a certain physical or a psychological way.

the "innate"ness of the brain or perceiving faculties is simply due to the arrangement of the machinery. the brain begins to collect data, because thats what the machinery does. the geometry of the machinery in the space-time continuum simply determines that this is an arrangement that collects data. its not some magical property that needs to have some starter software. the software is created and written as data is gathered. if we were born with rocket launchers, would you say that 'opportunity to launch rockets' was aprior?



"In Kant's own terminology, space is nothing more than a 'form of intuition [i.e., perception]'. Kant employs a similar argument to conclude that time, too, is a mere form of intuition. Space and time are features of the phenomenal world - the world as it appears to us - only. The noumenal world - the world of things as they are in themselves - is aspatial and atemporal."

Time is simply our minds building the perception of the symmetry breaking 4th dimension. so in a sense, time is intuition. Space however, is there. there is no getting around that! our brains may not for example, notice the ENTIRE light spectrum, but that doesnt make the light spectrum we do notice some sort of false reality...

 

[JocktheMotie]

While this is a very interesting conversation, I have so far avoided throwing my view into the thread because I ask these questions on a physics type level, and not on the philosophical level. While there are similarities, I'm not familiar enough with Kant to put it in perspective. I will say, that some of Kants suppositions are reflected in modern cosmology and physics, which is a credit to him.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

We may yet discover rules that direct Quantum mechanics in deterministic ways, this would lead us back to a mechanistic universe.

also, it only makes sense to talk about this world as an illusion if you have some other world in mind. if we can never perceive this "true reality" then this world would for all intensive purposes BE our "reality". There must be some fundemental difference between the two to really make any sense of alternate and 'true realities'.

The reality of the phenomenal world, or our space, time and matter, for all practical purposes is as real as it gets. The 'ultimate' reality, or the noumenal realm matters only as a substratum or the underlying layer of our reality. We know nothing of it other than it exists.

Does this strike you as problematic?

 

[Mycroft]

The reality of the phenomenal world, or our space, time and matter, for all practical purposes is as real as it gets. The 'ultimate' reality, or the noumenal realm matters only as a substratum or the underlying layer of our reality. We know nothing of it other than it exists.

Does this strike you as problematic?

So this "noumenal realm" is unknowable, unfathomable to human minds, can't be directly proven to exist, and must simply be taken on faith or what is essentially an ontological argument? And this doesn't strike you as so much mysticism?

I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate; I'd like to understand what you're talking about, but after three pages of exchange, I still have no idea what it is you're trying to express. In every instance where I've attempted to rephrase your theory in clear language, you've simply stated that it's "not that" and left it at that.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So this "noumenal realm" is unknowable, unfathomable to human minds, can't be directly proven to exist, and must simply be taken on faith or what is essentially an ontological argument? And this doesn't strike you as so much mysticism?

I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate; I'd like to understand what you're talking about, but after three pages of exchange, I still have no idea what it is you're trying to express. In every instance where I've attempted to rephrase your theory in clear language, you've simply stated that it's "not that" and left it at that.

Its not accepted on faith. The reason for accepting it is as follows. Suppose only the phenomenal realm exists. Phenomenal realm is finite. That means it was created by something else. That something else was also created by something else. This way we would go ad infinitum without finding the first cause.

The noumenal realm solves this problem. It posits that reality is infinite and therefore does not need to be created. What is real is therefore unchangeable or static. Our realm is not real (but for all our practical purposes must be assumed to be real as this is the only world we are capable of knowing), because it changes. It is merely a distorted perception of what is real.

Hence, if you maintain that life exists, or that there is something rather than nothing, the only way you can support such a thesis is by claiming that there is a noumenal world. Your alternatives are as follows, accepting the absurdity that something came from nothing or claiming that nothing exists because you are unable to explain why something exists. (You would be unable to explain why something exists because you would be unable to find the first cause of all things, as the infinite regress argument shows. If finite entity A was created by finite entity B, finite entity C must have created finite entity D. We would proceed ad infinitum without having found the first cause. The only way there could be a first cause is if such a first cause is infinite.)

 

[Mycroft]

Its not accepted on faith. The reason for accepting it is as follows. Suppose only the phenomenal realm exists. Phenomenal realm is finite. That means it was created by something else. That something else was also created by something else. This way we would go ad infinitum without finding the first cause.

Present evidence and understanding is not sufficient to make these sort of claims. Is the universe finite? Is there a fuller economy? Are there other universes or dimensions? We don't even know what reality is presently, so it strikes me as premature to make the statements you make with such conviction.

The noumenal realm solves this problem.

So does "God did it", and I don't buy that, either.

It posits that reality is infinite and therefore does not need to be created. What is real is therefore unchangeable or static. Our realm is not real (but for all our practical purposes must be assumed to be real as this is the only world we are capable of knowing), because it changes. It is merely a distorted perception of what is real.

Even if reality necessitates an infinite "noumenal realm", it strikes me as a broad logical leap to assume that this infinite realm must also be unchanging.

Hence, if you maintain that life exists, or that there is something rather than nothing, the only way you can support such a thesis is by claiming that there is a noumenal world.

...or "God did it".

Your alternatives are as follows, accepting the absurdity that something came from nothing or claiming that nothing exists because you are unable to explain why something exists. (You would be unable to explain why something exists because you would be unable to find the first cause of all things, as the infinite regress argument shows. If finite entity A was created by finite entity B, finite entity C must have created finite entity D. We would proceed ad infinitum without having found the first cause. The only way there could be a first cause is if such a first cause is infinite.)

Again, until we have acquired a greater understanding of what reality is, one can't make these sort of claims.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Again, until we have acquired a greater understanding of what reality is, one can't make these sort of claims.

It seems to me that you've missed my point altogether almost!

Present evidence and understanding is not sufficient to make these sort of claims. Is the universe finite? Is there a fuller economy? Are there other universes or dimensions? We don't even know what reality is presently, so it strikes me as premature to make the statements you make with such conviction.claims.

We know that the Universe is finite and not completely infinite because we have observed at least one entity that has a limit.

So does "God did it", and I don't buy that, either.
.

No, it does not. Because in that case there will be another question for the theist to answer. What made God? The theist succumbs to the problem of infinite regress, and the Kantian does not.

Even if reality necessitates an infinite "noumenal realm", it strikes me as a broad logical leap to assume that this infinite realm must also be unchanging..

Describe that leap as thoroughly as possible, as I do not see it.

Again, until we have acquired a greater understanding of what reality is, one can't make these sort of claims.

All the evidence we may acquire is evidence of only the world of our experience. On empirical grounds there is no evidence of the noumenal world as it is by definition inscutable. However, there is philosophical evidence in favor of the existence of the noumenal realm, as I have explained in my earlier posts, especially the previous post.

 

[Mycroft]

We know that the Universe is finite and not completely infinite because we have observed at least one entity that has a limit.

Just because something contains finite objects doesn't mean that it is finite. The number "2" is finite; numbers are not.

No, it does not. Because in that case there will be another question for the theist to answer. What made God? The theist succumbs to the problem of infinite regress, and the Kantian does not.

My point is that you can substitute a broad definition of "God" for this Kantian "noumenal realm" without making any change to the underlying argument whatsoever.

Describe that leap as thoroughly as possible, as I do not see it.

If something is truly infinite, it would be all that there is, so it could constantly change states -- there would be nothing else! Your first leap of faith is that this "noumenal realm" exists at all. The second is that it is inherently unchanging.

All the evidence we may acquire is evidence of only the world of our experience. On empirical grounds there is no evidence of the noumenal world as it is by definition inscrutable. However, there is philosophical evidence in favor of the existence of the noumenal realm, as I have explained in my earlier posts, especially the previous post.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I regard claims of any inscrutable, undefinable, unknowable and, most importantly, unverifiable entity to be nothing more than mysticism.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Just because something contains finite objects doesn't mean that it is finite. The number "2" is finite; numbers are not..

Numbers are merely abstractions. Theoretical representations of what may be real. Or in other words, in themselves they do not allude to anything of reality, they are merely possible ways to express a point. For example, the following statement '2' does not tell us anything about the world. Now, if I say there are two chairs, the statement '2' now does tell us something about the world.

If something is infinite, that means that only this entity exists. Finite entities may inhere within that entity, however, they lack an identity that is autonomous from the infinite identity. The definition of infinity presupposes that only the infinite entity exists. Thus, all finite entities exist as merely part of that infinite entity. That means that in their own right they do not exist at all. They are merely illusions, or extensions of what truly does exist.

Thus, what is truly infinite may seem to be finite, but in essence must be infinite.

My point is that you can substitute a broad definition of "God" for this Kantian "noumenal realm" without making any change to the underlying argument whatsoever...

What good is that? This does nothing at all to support any of the ideas traditionally associated with God such as creationism or the afterlife.

If something is truly infinite, it would be all that there is, so it could constantly change states -- there would be nothing else! Your first leap of faith is that this "noumenal realm" exists at all. The second is that it is inherently unchanging....

The explanation for the noumenal realm is as follows. We know that some things exist. The only way they could exist is if they are extensions of what is infinite or noumenal, otherwise we fall prey to the infinite regress argument.

If something is truly infinite, it would be all that there is, so it could constantly change states -- there would be nothing else!....

What is infinite is outside of time because time is one way to measure a thing. What is infinite is by definition immeasurable. Change outside of time is not possible because the definition of change means variation of one state of being for another over time. As a matter of common-sense, it is not possible to assert that something has changed without any time involved in the process. For instance, if we say that Bob changed his hair-style, we obviously mean that at one point his hair-style was one way and at another a different way. Obviously the idea of change would be non-sense if it did not involve a concept of time.

 

[Venom]

The reality of the phenomenal world, or our space, time and matter, for all practical purposes is as real as it gets. The 'ultimate' reality, or the noumenal realm matters only as a substratum or the underlying layer of our reality. We know nothing of it other than it exists.

Does this strike you as problematic?

Its problematic not in the sense that I see it to be false. Its problematic because I see it as meaningless. "We know nothing of it other than it exists", if you know nothing of it, then how do you know it exists? (serious)

If there are no known relevant differences between the noumenal world and the phenomenal worlds, then aren't they one in the same? (if you know of relevant differences, then how can you say you know nothing of the noumenal world?)

I guess my main question is why there needs to be a noumenal world. what does it explain that the phenomenal world cant? Space-Time adequately explains all there is... everything ultimately reduces to the geometry of space time: any words or concepts we come up with are simply electrical storage codes in our heads that describe this geometry or possible geometries (impossible geometries described through re-arranging of components of real geometries).

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Its problematic not in the sense that I see it to be false. Its problematic because I see it as meaningless. "We know nothing of it other than it exists", if you know nothing of it, then how do you know it exists? (serious)

If there are no known relevant differences between the noumenal world and the phenomenal worlds, then aren't they one in the same? (if you know of relevant differences, then how can you say you know nothing of the noumenal world?)

I guess my main question is why there needs to be a noumenal world. what does it explain that the phenomenal world cant? Space-Time adequately explains all there is... everything ultimately reduces to the geometry of space time: any words or concepts we come up with are simply electrical storage codes in our heads that describe this geometry or possible geometries (impossible geometries described through re-arranging of components of real geometries).

It explains why the phenomenal world exists in the first place. (It avoids the infinite regress challenge that most arguments that purport to account for the existence of the universe cannot avoid.)

 

[Venom]

It explains why the phenomenal world exists in the first place. (It avoids the infinite regress challenge that most arguments that purport to account for the existence of the universe cannot avoid.)

{Andrei} Linde has been involved in most of the significant developments with the theory since then. The next step forward came with the realization that there need not be anything special about the Planck- sized region of spacetime that expanded to become our Universe. If that was part of some larger region of spacetime in which all kinds of scalar fields were at work, then only the regions in which those fields produced inflation could lead to the emergence of a large universe like our own. Linde called this "chaotic inflation", because the scalar fields can have any value at different places in the early super-universe; it is the standard version of inflation today, and can be regarded as an example of the kind of reasoning associated with the anthropic principle.

The idea of chaotic inflation led to what is (so far) the ultimate development of the inflationary scenario. The great unanswered question in standard Big Bang cosmology is what came "before" the singularity. It is often said that the question is meaningless, since time itself began at the singularity. But chaotic inflation suggests that our Universe grew out of a quantum fluctuation in some pre-existing region of spacetime, and that exactly equivalent processes can create regions of inflation within our own Universe. In effect, new universes bud off from our Universe, and our Universe may itself have budded off from another universe, in a process which had no beginning and will have no end.

It is entirely possible that existence is infinite, yet due to chaotic inflation, at our particular region of the multi-verse, we find things to be finite. So again, I find the noumenal and the phenomenal to be one in the same...

In the simplest terms:
1. at the proper scale, everything = energy.
2. the simplest possible anything = chaos with no limits or order (infinite)
3. quantum mechanics has shown us that random events can "freeze" at higher levels of scope (quantum events appear to be not deterministic, yet at our scale, things appear very deterministic)
4. roll 6 dice 50,000 times and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is almost inevitable. Our region of the universe, our 'scalar field', is that random but inevitable 'ordering' of the infinite chaos.
5. The finite world we see is still part of that infinite chaos. The differences in attributes depend only on the scope we arbitrarily decide to view this chaos that we call "space-time" in our particular region.
6. The phenomenal and noumenal is therefore one in the same, when viewed at the proper scope.

 

[Mycroft]

I can't see the following two as anything other than fundamentally the same argument:

- Some things exist! Therefore, there is an unknowable, unfathomable, unverifiable entity who exists beyond the access of rational thought.

- Some things exist! Therefore, there is an unknowable, unfathomable, unverifiable noumenal realm which exists beyond the access of rational thought.

Our knowledge of the true nature of the universe is too limited to make any certain claims; there are working theories and various models under consideration (a good example being that pointed out by Babylon Candle), but right now "we don't know" is all that we've got.

And yes, I get it: infinite regress. However, given the present state of our understanding of the nature of the universe, I think it's entirely premature to assert anything in regard to this conundrum with absolute certainty, let alone that an unfathomable noumenal realm is the only possible solution.

One thing, however, is certain: the "we can't even know that we know anything" line of anti-thinking that follows from the philosophies of people like Kant and Hegel certainly won't do anything to get us any closer to answers.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Infinite is by definition unknowable. We know that our universe exists. The only way it could possibly be justified in principle (irrespectively of empirical investigation) is if it stems from the infinite realm.

On that note what we know about this world is completely irrelevant. This metaphysical principle we have established here is analogous to the nature of reality as laws of mathematics are to engineering. An engineer does not need a wealth of experiences with the principle of addition in order to know that 2 plus 2 always make four. We do not need a wealth of experience to know that a finite thing cannot come from nowhere or derive from the first cause which is also a finite entity.

One thing, however, is certain: the "we can't even know that we know anything" line of anti-thinking that follows from the philosophies of people like Kant and Hegel certainly won't do anything to get us any closer to answers.

You seem to be confusing Kant and Hegel for Socrates who said that all he knew was that he knew nothing. Hegel and Kant made bold assertions about how the world works.

 

[ThatGirl]

i didnt read anything but the op but here you go

On point one, there is a difference between knowledge and the ability to understand. Understanding comes before knowledge. The potential to understand is what I think you are talking about here. I believe this comes down to brain function and exists within the contrasts of individual mind development. Physical factors that pretain to this cabability, I believe, are created within a complex system of events beginig at the point of conception through out development.

On point two, I would say that infants carry a strong tendency for both introversion and extroversion since on a physical level they are exaushted and overwhelmed when receiving too much external stimuli, im guessing this comes from their imature ability to process as they go. As far as the innate characteristics, this could go either way as well. At best it is certainly a mixture of capability as well as introduction. For example one may be capable of or have an understanding toward, but if the actual opportunity is never in existence within their world, certainly this knowledge would not manifest itself . This would lead the individual toward other interests which may or may not be as innate yet still comprehendable and result in the foundations for other interests and preferences to occur, as you stated with your sugar salt analogy.

To point three, we are all just a little pocket of bacteria that exists in a coexisting but differently functioning time within a larger context that is functioning indipendantly yet slightly connected to us

 

[Venom]

Infinite is by definition unknowable. We know that our universe exists. The only way it could possibly be justified in principle (irrespectively of empirical investigation) is if it stems from the infinite realm.

my point of bringing up chaotic inflation was not to empirically try and 'prove' anything. my only point was to use it to illustrate the following points:

1. Just because infinite as a set is unfathomable, does not mean numbers within the set are unfathomable. The universe may still be infinite and yet have properties that 'appear' finite in our area of the universe and appear finite to our perception. Just because a line is infinite, does not mean we can't measure a part of the line between A and B. Just because a set is infinite, does not mean we cant quantify the numbers between 2 and 100,000 within the set.

2. Stemming from the infinite realm, is for all intensive purposes, BEING PART of the infinite realm. If the finite realm extends from within the infinite realm, then they are connected and really one in the same. It would then only be our arbitrary "finite"isizing that makes part of it finite.

On that note what we know about this world is completely irrelevant. This metaphysical principle we have established here is analogous to the nature of reality as laws of mathematics are to engineering. An engineer does not need a wealth of experiences with the principle of addition in order to know that 2 plus 2 always make four. We do not need a wealth of experience to know that a finite thing cannot come from nowhere or derive from the first cause which is also a finite entity.

Math ---> physics ---> engineering
Infinity must be first cause ---> nature of reality

"Engineering is made from math. Reality is made from infinity"

That I can agree with. What I can't agree with, is the idea that a "finite" realm then separated from the infinite realm and thus requires us to talk about two different realms. "Reality is made from infinity" does not directly lead to "there are two realities" (im NOT saying that this is what you said, im trying to paraphrase with the hope that you may clarify)

 

[Mycroft]

SW, in your mind, how would this universe and life have arisen from the noumenal realm? Also, what would the existence of this noumenal realm mean for free will?

You seem to be confusing Kant and Hegel for Socrates who said that all he knew was that he knew nothing. Hegel and Kant made bold assertions about how the world works.

I recant my statement. My knowledge of the philosophies of Kant and Hegel is, at present, not thorough enough to pass any certain judgment. I allowed my biases to be affected by those of my preferred philosopher.