On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:01:20 AM UTC, Peter Sas wrote: > > Haha... The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter > concept could not be proven wrong since it was a priori... >
kant was a great genius and pioneer, and his point was beyond brilliant for any reasonable control of the fact he had it in the 18th century. No one here or anywhere can say whether or how much his point will ultimately bear out. When I read your ideas I wasn't sure to reply because what would be right to say totally depends on what your age and stage and goals are in these ideas. If they are the end of your work, then basically...get nice and drunk and then realize all you just said is what every man and his dog says....this far is short of new ground. Attraction repulsion...sure why not...we know things are like that a lot. But then there's "things absorbing and emiting things" that's a goer as well. The one I use from the start is things intersecting. Show me a single point in the space and time of reality that one isn't true. Or then there's the question about whether it is fundamental. How much so? If we listed all the symmetric tautologies we might have 8 or 10, or 30 or however many we choose our cut off. If attraction/repulsion first appears 6th after some others like holographics and fractals and invariant indeterminate densities....that makes it really fundamental. It's the sixth unique conception ever to exist. But what if there are only 6? and after that the mix. Or what if attraction repulsion is an emergent theme, from other things. What I'm saying is that for how far you get things, the question is not substantive sufficiently. But on the other hand if you are nearer the beginning, then.....please....don't listen to any of these assholes here or anywhere. They don't know what's true or how much. Some of them pompously pout about that clearly not being true because look at this or that. But they really say is that AS NOW this moment, Kant's explanation may not be the whole story. But the answer As 1950, 1900, 1812, 2032, 2090, these answers will not depend on what things appear to be now. Everything people say shows something else, can just as easily the resultant of cluster of luscious fertile Attraction and Repulsion conjunction. They don't know. Science doesn't know. Kant is still in play. and so are you dude if those insights came from out of you > > But besides that, it remains the case that the electromagnetic force > causes positive charges to repel each other and to attract negative > charges, which are repellent among themselves. Your description of how a > magnetic field works just seems to offer another way of describing the same > fact. In other words: can't we say that the electromagnetic force is > completely described (on some general level) by noting the repulsive and > attractive forces between charges? Or is there more to this force? > > Also with respect to Russell's remark about Pauli's exclusion principle > (PEP): It says that fermions of the same type cannot have the same quantum > state. But how is that different from saying that those fermions repel each > other? And what is the status of the PEP? It seems to be independent of the > four basic forces. Is it more of a logical principle? For example, Heinz > Pagel in his book The Cosmic Code argues that PEP is an application of the > logical principle of the identity of indiscernibles to the quantum level. > In that case, I would say that the PEP actually provides a good argument > for Kant's approach: using logical principles to argue for repulsion as > constitutive of matter. > > As for the fact that most philosopher's don't propose falsifiable > hypotheses... This of course raises the question of what philosophy is > supposed to do... I don't think there is on single answer to that question. > I agree that a lot of philosophy is just empty words, said to say... Most > philosophers, in the Continental tradition anyway, have lost touch with > science... But that doesn't mean that philosophers should offer falsifiable > claims like scientists. Take for example Popper's principle that claims are > scientific iff they are falsifiable (the very principle you implicitly > invoked). Is that principle itself falsifiable? Clearly not. We may have > some inductive evidence for it (falsifiable theories have worked better > through the centuries than non-falsifiable ones). But induction is > precisely a principle rejected by Popper and is replaced by the > falsification principle as the criterion of good science. It seems then > that the falsification principle is an a priori construction that makes > science possible. And that is a very Kantian approach... > > > > > > > > > Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 03:26:09 UTC+1 schreef John Clark: >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 Peter Sas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of >>> attractive and repulsive forces >> >> >> A magnetic field neither attracts nor repels an electron, instead it >> applied a force that is always at right angles to the electron's direction >> of motion. Oh well, at lest Kant came up with a theory that had the >> capacity to be proven wrong, which is more than I can say about most >> philosophers. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science >>> (1786) where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the >>> transcendental categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure >>> Reason. One of the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter >>> on 'dynamics' where Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the >>> concepts of attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as >>> the forms of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter >>> is explained by a repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be >>> complemented by an attractive force, since otherwise matter would scatter >>> infinitely throughout space. >>> >>> Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern >>> terms: interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of >>> attraction and repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one >>> object exerts a force on another, this can ony result either in the objects >>> moving away from each other (so that the force must be repulsive) or in the >>> objects moving towards each other (so that the force must be attractive). >>> >>> Here is what he writes: >>> >>> "These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that >>> can be thought. In the context of questions about one portion of matter >>> impressing some motion on another, the two portions must be regarded as >>> points; so any transaction of that kind must be regarded as happening >>> between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only two ways >>> for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line: >>> either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force; >>> or they recede from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force. >>> Consequently, these two kinds of forces are the only ones we can make sense >>> of; and all the forces of motion in material Nature must come down to >>> them." (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1) >>> >>> I thought this was a real eye opener. Nowadays, of course, we know much >>> more about the basic interactions than in Kant's time. So I started >>> wondering: First, is it true that all the basic interactions are forms of >>> attraction and/or repulsion? And if so, then could it perhaps be possible >>> that all the interactions can ultimately be unified in one most elementary >>> form of attraction and repulsion? Isn't is the case that when we get closer >>> to the singularity the interactions become one? But what then are they >>> unified into? >>> >>> Gravity is clear attractive, though I gather that in inflation gravity >>> can also be repulsive. >>> In electromagnetism repulsion and attraction too play an important role, >>> though I am not sure if this also holds for the weak nuclear force to which >>> the electromagnetic force appears to be related. >>> In the strong nuclear force attraction too plays a crucial role. >>> >>> So how do you think about Kant's suggestion in the light of present day >>> physics? Is there a chance that all the fundamental interactions are >>> different manifestations of one single polarity of attraction and >>> repulsion? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In short: matter is defined as filling space and as impenetrable for >>> other pieces of matter. According to Kant, this concept of matter can be >>> fully contstructed >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
