Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Don't Rand and Kant have more in common than not?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Kant did not believe that time existed in different frames of reference, he was a Newtonian and thought it was objective.  What he did believe, however, was that time is built into the very way that we think and perceive and so it should only be thought to exist in us and not in the thing-in-itself.  It would be similar to, though not the same as, thinking that because we perceive time to flow the same everywhere that it is objective and not relative.  Another analogy would be a person with poor eye-sight believing that things at a distance become blurry--not just that it would appear blurry, that it would actually be blurry.

“Is that Kant's position, or yours?”

Both.  But don’t take this to be a statement that we cannot know the thing-in-itself.  We aren’t there yet either, in respect to this particular quote.

[Emphasis Mine]

How very simplistic, "Lifesimpliciter" . You live up to your title. Cheers!

Where does "subjectivity" figure in, if at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we know that our perception of the “flow” of a unified time is simply an illusion created by the fact that we perceive one flow of time

This is what you get when you study the Kantianese translation of Special Relativity.

In English, it goes like this: Times and distances are measured differently in different frames of reference. You can obtain the measurements in one frame of reference from the measurements in another frame of reference by applying a Lorentz transformation.

On an earthly scale, the differences between time measurements are negligible. For the purposes of earthly applications, time is objective and universal; a moving clock tells me the time just as well as a stationary one does.

On a larger scale, time measurements become frame dependent. My objective time measurements yield different figures than your objective time measurements, but the Lorentz transformation provides an objective translation between them. A moving clock does not tell me the same time a stationary clock would, but if I can measure the clock's velocity, I can apply the Lorentz formula to the clock's time and obtain the same time a stationary clock would show. In this context, time is objective, but not universal.

The very foundation of the Theory of Relativity is that the laws of physics, including the speed of light, are the same in all frames of reference. The theory presupposes the ability to make objective measurements of times and distances in one's own frame.

Because time is built into the very way that we think, it is taken to be ideal--that is, not real.  As Kant stressed, we should never mistake our instrument for the object under observation.  It would be like believing the microscope were a part of the cell, or the ear a part of the music.

Time is not the instrument we measure with; it is what we measure. The instrument would be a clock. The microscope is to the cell what the clock is to time.

What is the image of a circle?  You might be tempted to smack your forehead, air-finger a circle and say “Duh!”  You’d be wrong.

So, if I have air-fingered a circle, which of the following is true?

A. I have air-fingered a circle

B. I have not air-fingered a circle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“OK, I think I'm beginning to get it. "Time flows differently in different frames of reference, therefore time is not objective"--would that be the basic idea?”

Well, we’re heading in the right direction, but we aren’t quite there yet.  It’s more of an analogy than it is a literal connection between the Einstein-Minkowski model and Kant’s.  In the Einstein-Minkowski model, our very means of perception causes us to believe a falsity--namely, the objectivity of space.  Now if we come to correctly understand our perception and how it relates to the rest of the world, it actually tells us that time is not the same everywhere, nor that it is distinct from space.

Kant did not believe that time existed in different frames of reference, he was a Newtonian and thought it was objective.  What he did believe, however, was that time is built into the very way that we think and perceive and so it should only be thought to exist in us and not in the thing-in-itself.  It would be similar to, though not the same as, thinking that because we perceive time to flow the same everywhere that it is objective and not relative.  Another analogy would be a person with poor eye-sight believing that things at a distance become blurry--not just that it would appear blurry, that it would actually be blurry.

“Is that Kant's position, or yours?”

Both.  But don’t take this to be a statement that we cannot know the thing-in-itself.  We aren’t there yet either, in respect to this particular quote.

LifeSimpliciter:

1. Are you aware of the basic Objectivist refutation of Kantian philosophy: that it is invalid to reason from the fact that man perceives with certain certain organs, in a certain form - to the fact that his perceptions do not give evidence of the external world?

"The fact that consciousness has identity is self-evident; it is an instance of the law of identity. Objectivism, however, stands alone in accepting the fact's full meaning and implications. All the standard attacks on the senses -- and wider: all the Kant-inspired attacks on human cognition as such -- begin with the premise that consciousness *should not* have identity and conclude that, since it does, consciousness is invalid...." -- Leonard Peikoff, "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p.49"

The fact that we perceive things "in space" and "in time" is not grounds for stating that space and time are not attributes of existents in the world. Actually, Kant said more than this: he said that we are unable to even "conceive" of things without conceiving them in space and time. Thus, his alleged defence of the "objectivity" of space and time consists in destroying their objectivity altogether: by detaching them from sensory evidence and allegedly validating them by reference to our ability to "conceive" (which last is determined by certain innate "synthesizing" structures), he opened the way to all the moderns who say that because we can imagine alternatives to space and time, or because conceptually advanced descriptions of space and time (such as those based on Einstein's physical theories) are not conceptually the same as the theorems of schoolboy geometry, there is no objectivity with regard to space and time - or anything else.

2. There is a distinction between the use of the terms "objective" and "subjective" on the one hand, in philosophy, and the use of the terms "absolute" and "relative", to describe space and time, on the other. (It is the irrationalism of modern philosophy that has equated the two: Einstein -- whatever his errors, his concessions to irrational philosophies -- fought against such an interpretation of his scientific views.)

Isaac Newton observed that our measurement of the velocity of an object depends on our own motion (the so-called "Galilean relativity", observable by anyone who watches the world "go past" him from a smoothly moving boat). Yet he said that there was a distinction between motion and rest, a distinction that applied regardless of the observer's motion. He gave a famous physical argument to justify this. This is Newton's theory of "absolute" space and time.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity does not say anything about space and time being "within us." It says that measurements of space and time *depend* on the motion of the observer. This is an entirely determinate relationship, and may be no more "subjective" than the fact that when we are close to a door, it appears larger than when we are further away - measurements are the form of our cognition, not the content.

Needless to say, the fact that measurements of objects depend on our physical state does not mean that the attributes measured are "within us". It only means that the measurements are a product both of the nature of the object, *and* of our physical state and physical organs. This is what makes such measurements accurate: they give us evidence of the sum total of active factors. See Leonard Peikoff's book above, chapter 2, for an analogous discussion involving the senses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Where does "subjectivity" figure in, if at all?”

It is precisely what Kant was trying to argue against. He was trying to tell people that one should not mistake one’s subjective perceptions for objective reality.

“This is what you get when you study the Kantianese translation of Special Relativity.”

Actually, it is what was proved by Kurt Godel, best friend to Albert Einstein, and when Godel pressed his argument Einstein considered it a great contribution to General Relativity.

“On an earthly scale, the differences between time measurements are negligible.”

But, importantly, still existent. Aristotelian physics, for many earthly purposes, are quite accurate--but ultimately an illusion and false.

“The theory presupposes the ability to make objective measurements of times and distances in one's own frame.”

Quite true, and this is what separates my beliefs from Kant’s. I was using the Einstein-Minkowski model as a mere analogy to explain why Kant rejected the existence of time, but I believe it is an even better analogy between my own view and Kant’s for precisely this reason.

“Time is not the instrument we measure with; it is what we measure. The instrument would be a clock. The microscope is to the cell what the clock is to time.”

This may be true, but the point is this: We cannot think outside of the terms of time and space. Think of an object that does not exist at any time in any place, but still exists. You can’t and that is because it is outside the ability of the human mind to do so. Is this because such a thing cannot possibly exist, like a round square, or because our minds are limited--and how do you argue one way or the other?

Say somebody were playing a joke on you and put an image of a cell on the lens of a microscope. When you look through it, you presume there is a cell, but you are mistaking appearance for being.

On this much Kant and I agree. But what distinguishes us is that Kant throws his hands up and says, “Well, the game is hopeless. We can’t trust our senses.” I say wait, uses as many tests and senses and theories and forms of evidence that you can to produce the best theory of what exists in the real world. Maybe we’ll get it wrong--it has happened in the past. But if you don’t try, you’ll have no choice but to fall down and die of hunger because you don’t believe you really have food in front of you.

“So, if I have air-fingered a circle, which of the following is true?

A. I have air-fingered a circle

B. I have not air-fingered a circle”

You have air-fingered a circle--you have not produced the image of a circle. You have produced the circle itself. The image is in the brain, and it does not necessarily have the intrinsic properties of the circle itself but rather stands as a representation that is supposed to refer to the circle (or denote, or designate, whichever is your favorite philosophy of language).

“1. Are you aware of the basic Objectivist refutation of Kantian philosophy: that it is invalid to reason from the fact that man perceives with certain certain organs, in a certain form - to the fact that his perceptions do not give evidence of the external world?”

I am aware of most every Objectivist view, yes.

“2. There is a distinction between the use of the terms "objective" and "subjective" on the one hand, in philosophy, and the use of the terms "absolute" and "relative", to describe space and time, on the other.”

That is quite right and if I have accidentally confused the two then I would appreciate your point it out to me so that I can correct and clarify myself. However, I do not immediately recall confusing them in this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is precisely what Kant was trying to argue against.  He was trying to tell people that one should not mistake one’s subjective perceptions for objective reality.

How about one's objective perceptions? One shouldn't mistake them for subjective "phenomena."

Actually, it is what was proved by Kurt Godel

Godel's views on time had a very idealistic and Kantian basis, so you cannot really expect Objectivists--who reject such a basis--to accept his reasoning as proof of anything.

“On an earthly scale, the differences between time measurements are negligible.”

But, importantly, still existent.

Can you provide an example of an earthly application where there exist relativistic differences between time measurements made by two observers? (By earthly, I mean one involving non-microscopic objects found on Earth traveling at their usual speeds on Earth.)

The closest I can think of is a car race, where time measurements are made with millisecond precision. The cars travel at, say, 200 MPH, which is

200/(186282*3600) = 1/3353076
the speed of light. This would mean a time dilation factor of
sqrt(1 - 1/11243118661776) = 0.99999999999995552835338295455884
So if a car finishes the race in two hours = 7200.000 seconds of its own proper time, spectators will perceive the same time interval as
7200.000 / 0.99999999999995552835338295455884 = 7200.000000000320195855642741422

seconds. Given that their measurement precision is .001 second, their reading will be 7200.000 seconds, which is exactly the same as the time measured by the driver. No difference there!

Aristotelian physics, for many earthly purposes, are quite accurate--but ultimately an illusion and false.

An illusion that is false but accurate? Now I see where Dan Rather got his philosphy from! :) :)

Think of an object that does not exist at any time in any place, but still exists.

The number pi?

Nice try, but try again. :P

You have air-fingered a circle--you have not produced the image of a circle.  You have produced the circle itself.  The image is in the brain

But my air-fingering has made the guy think of a circle, so it has created a representation of a circle in his mind--so, in the end, I have produced the image of a circle for him, haven't I?

Besides, why does this distinction matter? He wanted to know what a circle is like and I've shown him what a circle is like. So what else does he want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number is not an "object." At any rate, we would have to conclude that an inconceivable, or contradictory proposition such as a nonexistent existent, or an A that is at the same time and same respect non-A, could not exist, and that it is not merely some limitation in our minds which fails to account for its possibility, but rather it is the soundness of our reason which succeeds in accounting for its impossibility!

The number pi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of an object that does not exist at any time in any place, but still exists.  You can’t and that is because it is outside the ability of the human mind to do so.  Is this because such a thing cannot possibly exist, like a round square, or because our minds are limited--and how do you argue one way or the other?

The reason this proposition is impossible is not "because it is outside the ability of the human mind to do so." It is because words stand for concepts-- the entire concept, not just one aspect of the concept (see Peikoff's essay "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy in ITOE).

An "object" is an entity which, by its definition, exists in time and space, assuming you mean "physical object." To try to imagine an object which does not have the properties of an object is impossible, not because of any limitations on the mind, but because it is a contradiction in terms.

It would only be the result of a limitation of the mind if the laws of Causality and Identity did not hold, were not proven, or were not (actually) true. But in fact, they, being axioms, are the very standard of "held," "proven," "actual" truths.

If no alternative to these can be conceived, than neither can an alternative "noumenal" reality of "suprasensible" things-in themselves be conceived in which the "limitations" of "pure reason" do not apply.

In other words, belief in such a fantasy world is unfounded and absurd, and the opposite of "objective."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number is not an "object."

An "object" is an entity which, by its definition, exists in time and space, assuming you mean "physical object."

I was using a more liberal interpretation of the word object, taking it to mean anything that man can identify. Of course, if a physical object is meant, then it is indeed a contradiction to posit one that exists, but doesn't exist at any place at any time, and I agree with all the rest of your comments as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using a more liberal interpretation of the word object, taking it to mean anything that man can identify. Of course, if a physical object is meant, then it is indeed a contradiction to posit one that exists, but doesn't exist at any place at any time, and I agree with all the rest of your comments as well.

And it wouldn't be incorrect to define "object" that way. I think that's how a lot of irrationalist type philosophies survive.. It's so hard to believe that a proponent of the given philosophy actually means what they seem to be saying, one wants to give them the best possible interpretation that could be made from the words that they use.

I think that's what makes Kant in particular so hard ["for a Westerner"] to read. He will compose a sentence that is "grammatically correct" and could make some equivocal sense in a given context. Then he will, maybe a few sentences or a few pages later (or a few pages later in the same sentence :) ) provide the context in which the sentence can properly be interpreted as completely absurd.

I've heard people claim they like Kant because so many "various interpretations" can be made of his works, but I've found that ultimately, one interpretation becomes clear and dominant in his works... It's just that it offends one's good will and respect for man's intellect to believe that's what he meant.

[edited to remove an accidental smiley and to add "for a Westerner" for fun.]

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wrote in obtuse language, but part of that can be blamed on the fact that his publisher demanded a copy at a time sooner than Kant was prepared to deliver.  So he had to rush his writing and couldn't take the time to review and edit it thoroughly enough.  I assume all of this is true for the second edition [...]

I am unsure what you are talking about. Your reference in the middle of the paragraph to the second edition implies that your first sentence refers to the first (A) edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. Is that the case? If so, then I am puzzled.

Everything I have read about Kant's life has suggested that he spent 11 years working on CPR's first edition. Yes, Kant apparently did say that, at the last, he rushed it into print, but it was supposedly because of his fear of dying before completing his project. He was aware of the flood of neologisms he had unleashed. He was aware of the obscurity of his writing. And yet he went ahead, claiming he didn't have enough time. Nevertheless, he did have the time -- five years! -- to revise CPR for the second edition, which wasn't much better. (Kuehn, Kant: A Biography, pp. 232-233, has some discussion of these events and Kant's explanations.)

If you have a source showing that Kant's obscurity was due to the unreasonable demands of his publisher, I would very much like to have a reference. Can you cite a source?

[...]often taken to be an entirely different philosophy than that which is found in the first, and the second edition is generally what people equate with Kant's philosophy.

Can you give some examples of Kant scholars who believe that Kant's philosophy in CPR-B is "entirely different" than his philosophy in CPR-A? I have never heard that view before.

Also, if "people" equate Kant's philosophy with the content of CPR-B, why do so many "people" cite both editions as if they were two sections of one work, from which a reader can pick and choose? I am struggling my way through Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism, and I am seeing him take the same approach.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised that people are actually dignifying such a contention as the notion that the "Critique of Pure Reason" was unclear because Kant was rushed to finish his second edition. It's quite clear that with that kind of argument, we are going into the "you are an atheist because you have not read the Bible in Armaic/Latin" argument.

But I should make it clearer what I think this Kantian dishonesty consists of. It is a persistent state of continuously twisting one's statements to cash-in on other people's uncertainty and contradictions (see Ayn Rand's comments on "the intellectual con man" in "Return of the Primitive", p.154ff). Anyone with patience can read Kant's books (not just the first "Critique", which is only the worst, and neccessarily is, because in it the foundation is introduced, and not so much dishonesty is needed to draw the conclusions from it) to see that only something outide of the range of human error, something like this mentality described above, could make them possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Time is not the instrument we measure with; it is what we measure. The instrument would be a clock. The microscope is to the cell what the clock is to time.

I agree with almost everything you said, Cap, having some background in physics as you obviously do as well. I agree with it all (and salute your inclusion of the Lorentz transformation into the discussion <_< )except your above statement is a little off I think, but discussion re the measurement of time is admittedly a sticky wicket. I'd just add that time has no operator in quantum mechanics. In QM, time is not an observable, it is a parameter. A clock measures movement -- it is the movement of the hands on the clock that are what you observe -- not time itself. So, does a clock really measure time? Or is time a operator-less parameter while the position of the clock's hands are what we really measure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what you get when you study the Kantianese translation of Special Relativity.

In English, it goes like this: Times and distances are measured differently in different frames of reference. You can obtain the measurements in one frame of reference from the measurements in another frame of reference by applying a Lorentz transformation.

Arrghhh. . . I responded hastily before. I snapped that last comment out as I was rushing to get the hell out of my job. I obv. wasn't working at the time :) but still . . . I needed fresh air and sunshine!!!

OK, looking at time in a semi-classical framework (i.e. in special relativity) --> doesn't the existence of different frames of reference in which the flow of time is different, show that the flow of time cannot be pinned down, objectively? Which frame of reference is the objective one?

On an earthly scale, the differences between time measurements are negligible. For the purposes of earthly applications, time is objective and universal; a moving clock tells me the time just as well as a stationary one does.

But there are precise differences between Earthly frames of reference where distance and time are concerned. How can you Honestly dismiss them just because they are small in size?

On a larger scale, time measurements become frame dependent. My objective time measurements yield different figures than your objective time measurements, but the Lorentz transformation provides an objective translation between them. A moving clock does not tell me the same time a stationary clock would, but if I can measure the clock's velocity, I can apply the Lorentz formula to the clock's time and obtain the same time a stationary clock would show. In this context, time is objective, but not universal.

This is like saying that whenever I add 2 and 2 I get 4. And whenever you add 2 and 2 you get 6. I can always know how you perceive the addition of integers in your frame of reference by always adding 2 to the perceived outcome of my own arithmetic. Do we share an objective concept of mathematics in this case? Do we share an objective concept of integers?

The very foundation of the Theory of Relativity is that the laws of physics, including the speed of light, are the same in all frames of reference.

Yes, but the price for our universal perception of the laws of physics is that our perceptions of other "observables" (in quotes, because as I mentioned in my last post, time isn't considered an observable in QM -- but we can use distance/energy as observables in this case) vary from frame of reference to seperate frame of reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

having some background in physics as you obviously do as well

It would be an exaggeration to call my familiarity with physics a "background" ; it's more like a knowledge of the basics.

doesn't the existence of different frames of reference in which the flow of time is different, show that the flow of time cannot be pinned down, objectively?

"Objectively" does not mean "independently of any frame of reference." On the contrary, objective knowledge is precisely knowledge with respect to a specific context ; in the case of time, the frame of reference is a relevant part of the context.

Which frame of reference is the objective one?

You can make objective measurements in any frame of reference. Your measurements will vary frame by frame, but as long as you keep in mind which frame each of them applies to, they will all be objective.

But there are precise differences between Earthly frames of reference where distance and time are concerned. How can you Honestly dismiss them just because they are small in size?

I seek objective knowledge of facts relevant to my life--not omniscience. If a difference is not big enough to make a difference to me, there is no difference to me.

This is like saying that whenever I add 2 and 2 I get 4. And whenever you add 2 and 2 you get 6. I can always know how you perceive the addition of integers in your frame of reference by always adding 2 to the perceived outcome of my own arithmetic. Do we share an objective concept of mathematics in this case? Do we share an objective concept of integers?

Yes. Proof: If a is false, then any statement in the form "If a, then b" is true. Since it is false that "whenever I add 2 and 2, I get 6," it is true that we share an objective concept of mathematics in that case. :smartass:

The above is a roundabout way of saying that your analogy is not a good one. A better one would be: I say "2 + 2 = 4," while my ancestor Capitalismus Eternalis of Rome said "II plus II est IV." We're both looking at the same objective fact of reality, only we're expressing ("measuring") it in a different way because of the differences in our means of expression--measurement--that arise from the differences in our respective contexts.

When I measure a pencil that is stationary relative to me, and an astronaut measures the same pencil from his spaceship flying by at half the speed of light, I will say the pencil is 6 inches long, while he will say the pencil is about 5.2 inches long--but we are measuring the same pencil. The difference in measurement is due to the fact that we are not measuring the same attribute of the pencil: I measure the attribute "length when stationary," while he measures the attribute "length at half the speed of light."

We could define a quantity like "frame-independent length," but this would not be measured in inches. Instead, it would have units like "stationary inch," "half-c inch," etc. One stationary inch would equal sqrt(3)/2 half-c inches. When measuring frame-independent length, the observer would have to take into account the velocity of the measured object relative to him. I would measure the pen to be 6 stationary inches long, while the astronaut would measure it to be ~5.2 half-c inches long. After converting units, we would find that our measurements are equal.

A similar argument could be made about measurements of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...