Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental..... — val p miranda

Interesting statement.

Transcendental.....what?

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality and, therefore, does not have a reality definition. — val p miranda

A reality definition that is limited to what is material and does not include time is an inadequate definition.

Time, however, is a concept ... — val p miranda

There are concepts of time but that does not mean that time is a concept.

A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place — val p miranda

If space both exists and makes existence possible, does that mean that the existence of space make space possible by providing itself a place? Where is this place in which space is made possible?

Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental because it is absolute, necessary and universal. — val p miranda

Transcendental conditions, according to Kant, are the conditions for the possibility of experience. Both space and time are transcendental, that is, they are conditions of the mind that structure experience rather than derived from experience.

(time) does not exist in reality — val p miranda

But that's obviously muddled. This post was made after yours; hence time has passed.

Better to start there, don't you think, then to jump right in to Kant ( , ) and Einstein?

Kant (↪Mww , ↪Fooloso4) and Einstein? — Banno

Mww and I are in good company!

Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality — val p miranda

Time is the measure of material change just as space is the measure of the lack of material change.

So yes, they are measures - the coordinate system. And you need both. One isn’t conceivable without the other, despite what Kant might say.

A lack of change can only be measured in terms of the possibility of a change. And reciprocally, the possibility of a change can only be measured in terms of the lack of a change.

Special relativity glues these coordinates together as spacetime, using the speed of light to express this reciprocal relation. Then general relativity adds in the further reciprocal deal that exists between a spacetime container and it material contents. This uses G as the constant that connects the two halves of the deal.

Quantum theory speaks to the material contents. It is the coordinate system for describing the fundamental action. And once more this is a unity of opposites related by a constant. Under QM, position and momentum are related by h. Time and energy are also a complementary pair under the reciprocality of the uncertainty relation.

Quantum field theory then shifts the point of view from point particles to spacetime-filling fields by uniting QM with special relativity. This is done by using both c and h as scaling constants.

So – as Okun's Cube of physical theories tells us – we leave the Newtonian world familiar to Kant behind by discovering the greater unity between all the parts of the Cosmos.

We have a unified theory of the spatiotemporal container in GR and a unified theory of the material contents in QFT. Next we look for a theory of Quantum Gravity that brings together all three fundamental constants - c, G and h - into a single system of reality measurement. We have a description of the Cosmos that combines the container and its contents as a reciprocal set of co-ordinates.

All the ontological elements are crisply defined in terms of their dialectical relations. Each becomes the measure of its "other" in a system of interactions.

A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place, in my view, is correct and realistic, not space-time with a fabric. — val p miranda

You are using terms that simply negate rather than "other". You oppose the material to the immaterial. And that is question begging when materiality itself is understood as substantial being of some kind. We know from Aristotle that substance is a hylomorphic unity of opposites – the combination of raw material potential and formal necessity.

So anything that exists in an actual or substantial way is complex. It is matter with form. To fully dematerialise it, you would have to take away both the matter and the form.

Again, modern physics accepts the irreducible complexity of the relations that could constitute a cosmos. Broadly you get to the same place – a GR container with its QFT contents. But also you preserve the unity – the symmetry – between these two sides to the story.

Spacetime tells matter how to move, matter tells spacetime how to curve. You've heard the expression of how the two are connected in a reciprocal fashion.

And a final theory – a QG theory uniting the three constants – would turn that aphorism into a concrete mathematics.

Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental because it is absolute, necessary and universal. Space as a transcendental is immaterial which means that it has no fabric--it is absolutely massless. — val p miranda

Kant was dealing with Newtonian physics. It was a mistake to psychologise time. It was a mistake to talk in antimonies rather than dichotomies.

Kant was a systems thinker, but he made some basic missteps.

A pure concept that is not empirical.

No time--the moment moves.

space is place

Your post is too much to respond to, but I will say this: it seems to me that Relativity is mostly based on mathematics and ignores time and space in reality. For example, how can time adjust the speed of light to make it the same for all observers when time does not exist. List one or two items for me to respond to. I appreciate all the time and thought that you presented. i have not done justice to your post

No time--the moment moves. — val p miranda

A moment moves? But there is no time?

Then what does a moment move in?

Then do you believe that time is a real immaterial existent? I do not see, hear, touch, etc. time. Time is a human creation for convenience. An example using nothing. Nothing is discussed all the time. But nothing does not exist--talk about non-existence. Such is time talk.

Time is a transcendental concept, but time in reality does not exist. As a concept, time is the measurement of motion. Who does the measuring?

Kant is my favorite philosopher, not Einstein.

Then do you believe that time is a real immaterial existent? — val p miranda

TIme is real, for what it's worth. You muddle words together, "real immaterial existent"... as if mortgages and emotions and theories were not real. You seem to want to deny time while you are embedded in it, like a fish denying the ocean in which it swims.

↪Fooloso4 space is place — val p miranda

This is what you said, followed by my response.

A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place
— val p miranda

If space both exists and makes existence possible, does that mean that the existence of space make space possible by providing itself a place? Where is this place in which space is made possible? — Fooloso4

An existent is something that exists. If space exists then it cannot be what makes existence possible, unless it is causa sui. Is that what you are claiming?

If space is place then what is the place of any particular object? The place where I put the dishes is not space.

For example, how can time adjust the speed of light to make it the same for all observers when time does not exist. — val p miranda

Where is it being said in relativity – as a theory of spacetime coordinates – that time doesn't exist or that time adjusts the speed of light?

You are making arguments based on your misunderstandings, not on the metaphysical implications of the scientific theory.

Follow up to my last post

If what exists exists in space and if space is an existent then space exists in itself. If it exists in itself it cannot be the same as itself. Space has become very crowded.

Perhaps

space

My view is that space was the first existent that initiated the universe; it is just an immaterial existent--that's it. Mass could not create itself, so one could say that space is responsible for the existence of everything else.

Good that Kant is your favorite philosopher.

Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental.... — val p miranda

Transcendental.....what? — Mww

A pure concept that is not empirical. — val p miranda

Thing is....the pure conceptions belong to understanding and are called categories, of which space is not one.

“...Consequently, the original representation of space is an intuition a priori, and not a conception....”

“...Space is no discursive, or as we say, general conception of the relations of things, but a pure intuition....”

“....Hence it follows that an à priori intuition (which is not empirical) lies at the root of all our conceptions of space....”

But all that doesn’t answer, “transcendental....what?”

metaphysical ideas

Ok. Thanks.

If what exists exists in space and if space is an existent then space exists in itself. If it exists in itself it cannot be the same as itself. — Fooloso4

Maybe it is. A possible definition of space. :snicker:

No, space requires no space because it is fundamental and it existed in the pre-universe.

It is a simple fundamental existent.

No, just a change of now that requires no time; reality moves. Here is a point for you: If time stops, nothing moves, so time makes movement possible. In my view, it does not.

I am unable to respond to most of your post other than to say that I think that Relativity is mostly mathematical with complex equations--tensors, etc. Kant disagreed with most of Lieibniz who disputed the "bucket" argument of Newton. Kant's goal was to discredit materialism in order to save religion, (Lutheranism). Idealism would do that; It was feared that materialism would bring about the end of religion.

Time and space can be viewed physically or psychologically.

Psychological time is far more varied and malleable. What feels like a day for one person can feel like a few hours for another. The very lingual articulation of time transforms our experience. Our world becomes a set of appointments and zones; for eating, sleeping, working etc.,.

Space is the same. It is likely that our appreciation of time comes about due to spatial association (psychologically speaking).

Of course but physically only as a concept. Time has such a strong impact on humanity that its non-existence is regarded as impossible.