Einstein vs Kant: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Einstein vs Kant » Einstein vs Kant

Einstein vs Kant

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Einstein vs Kant

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6303

Posted 05/12/06 - 12:31 PM:	#61
Reformed Nihilist wrote: ...Kant just takes so damn much work. I'm constantly amazed that so many think him worth the effort...
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

sidewinder
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 27, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 08/27/09 - 07:34 AM:	#62
Just read Peirce's critique on Kantian a-priori. I think it is related to the Einstein-Kant debate. Is anyone sure that apriori has any sense?

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 08/28/09 - 08:08 PM:	#63
Why "worth the effort"? Because Kant was the philosopher of the technological and scientific revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries that demolished scholasticism. New metaphysics were needed re-establish knowledge and truth after the fixed realism of Aristotle turned out to be a mirage. Not only was there the subjective relativity of the Sophists, but now there was an objective, scientific relativity that need to be tamed. To illustrate this new objective relativity, here's a variation on Einstein's Galilean dream: Three cowbells tuned to A, B, and C are hung a hundred feet apart in a straight line in the order A-B-C, and Einstein, standing in the middle yanks on the connecting wire. Anyone at A will hear the sequence ABC, someone at C will hear the sequence CBA, Einstein will hear B followed by an AC chord. Each of these three observations is repeatably true, yet contradicts the other two. All three sequences of a single event are simultaneously true! Therefore: 1) All events are relative 2) There are an infinite number of inconsistent histories, each originating in the here-now.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 08/29/09 - 03:09 AM:	#64
That's a nice illustration, YadaYada. You say All three sequences of a single event are simultaneously true! There are three different ways of describing the outcomes of the yank. And each description (sequence) is an event. None of A,B and C would claim that there was more than one yank. Have I missed your point?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 08/29/09 - 05:27 AM:	#65
YadaYada wrote: Why "worth the effort"? Because Kant was the philosopher of the technological and scientific revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries that demolished scholasticism. New metaphysics were needed re-establish knowledge and truth after the fixed realism of Aristotle turned out to be a mirage. Not only was there the subjective relativity of the Sophists, but now there was an objective, scientific relativity that need to be tamed. To illustrate this new objective relativity, here's a variation on Einstein's Galilean dream: Three cowbells tuned to A, B, and C are hung a hundred feet apart in a straight line in the order A-B-C, and Einstein, standing in the middle yanks on the connecting wire. Anyone at A will hear the sequence ABC, someone at C will hear the sequence CBA, Einstein will hear B followed by an AC chord. Each of these three observations is repeatably true, yet contradicts the other two. All three sequences of a single event are simultaneously true! First, there is not one single event here. There may be a number of consequences dependent on a single event, but there are many events. Second, the truth of the matter about the events is the same for everyone at all times. That is, the truth of what different observers stationed at different poitns will hear is independent of time. Therefore: 1) All events are relative 2) There are an infinite number of inconsistent histories, each originating in the here-now. Third, the histories are not inconsistent. They are just not consistent with certain assumptions of the relavtive speed of causation and other physical processes.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 08/29/09 - 12:12 PM:	#66
ragus wrote: There are three different ways of describing the outcomes of the yank. And each description (sequence) is an event. None of A,B and C would claim that there was more than one yank. Have I missed your point? That's it. Each, in the absence of the others would say that the yank caused that one event, and without relativistic reflection would never become aware of other possibilities. Here's a more extended description. The thing is that Berkeley made effective use of Galilean relativity in the negative part of his arguments. Which is why those portions are irrefutable. My impression is that Berkeley, Hume, Kant all attempted solutions to the epistemic dilemma presented. Kant's is based on Galileo's and has been vastly influential.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 08/29/09 - 12:52 PM:	#67
Kwalish Kid wrote: First, there is not one single event here. There may be a number of consequences dependent on a single event, but there are many events. At this level of observation, events are not discrete but complex continuous occurrences over time. In any case, the results are not affected by how one chooses to divide events. Second, the truth of the matter about the events is the same for everyone at all times. That is, the truth of what different observers stationed at different poitns will hear is independent of time. The observations can be repeated by anyone under the relevant conditions, which makes them scientifically objective. What is important here, is that a change in perspective alters the phenomenal experience of a single event, what is actually heard, (or a series of events, if you choose) significantly. Third, the histories are not inconsistent. I don't understand. How could the histories be made consistent? One sequence is ABC the other CBA. This can be recorded, or each observer will testify that that's what truly happened. All of the observations are simultaneously different, yet true. They are just not consistent with certain assumptions of the relative speed of causation and other physical processes. What assumptions would those be? The conditions of causation can be easily altered to eliminate objections. For example, Einstein could hide in a black box, and press a button to set off electrical signals to buzzers, each on the end of a 100 foot wire. The observed phenomena would still vary. Edited by YadaYada on 08/29/09 - 06:20 PM
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

marmot
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 17

Posted 08/30/09 - 02:20 AM:	#68
A few things. Just because mathematicians can have different vector spaces, it does not mean that "space" to the mathematician has the same sense as "space" to the ordinary person. A space to the mathematician is a mathematical structure that follows certain axioms (scalar multiplication and scalar addition) and this is why this axioms can apply from 3 dimensional Euclidean space to a space with any number of dimensions. So it is incorrect to think that just because mathematicians or physicists can define non-Euclidean spaces it means that people who use the ordinary meaning of space are wrong. Words don't have universal meaning - they are defined by the context of the language game. So when Einstein argues for a spacetime manifold that curves in the presence of energy-matter, it does not mean that the Einsteinian sense of space and time is the same than the ordinary persons use of the words. The technical use of space and time by physicists only has sense within the limit of their own scientific paradigms - they are names use for mathematical structures that are used to make predictions. This is why it is difficult to imagine curved space, because under ordinary conversation, "curved space" has absolutely no sense. However in mathematics, a "curved space" is perfectly possible, because mathematics is based on axioms, not visual geometry. Hence Wittgenstein's view that propositions can "violate the laws of physics but not the laws of geometry"- because it is impossible to make sense of parallel lines that cross. Similar, one can argue that the way Kant thought of space has very different sense than how Einstein used the word and thus mathematicians defining non-Euclidean spaces don't disprove Kant, because Kant had visual, Euclidean space in mind, not the sort of axiomatic geometry modern mathematicians use. I don't agree with Kant, but I think people using the "scientific argument" are falling under the common traps of philosophy, which means giving a universal meaning to a word outside social context. Edited by Incision on 08/30/09 - 01:56 PM. Reason: capitalization, punctuation

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 08/30/09 - 07:06 AM:	#69
YadaYada wrote: I don't understand. How could the histories be made consistent? One sequence is ABC the other CBA. This can be recorded, or each observer will testify that that's what truly happened. All of the observations are simultaneously different, yet true. The basis of relativity theory is that there is an objective way to translate between one account and another. If we use one frame of reference, then we assign times to specific events (well-defined events, not smeared multi-events). However, there is a well-defined set of translations that anyone can use to translate the times (and locations) assigned in one frame of reference to those assigned by any other frame of reference. Accounts are accounts, they may all be true, in a way independent of time, without contradicting each other because they are true accounts relative to a frame of reference.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 08/30/09 - 02:19 PM:	#70
YadaYada wrote a change in perspective alters the phenomenal experience of a single event, what is actually heard, (or a series of events, if you choose) significantly. The order of the three events heard depends on where the listener is. Why would we not expect this?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.