Incongruent counterparts

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Philosophy 101
  3. » Incongruent counterparts

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 08:47 pm
There must be absolute space because what? Explanation or a book that explains it better would be appreciated.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:09 pm
@Arjuna,
It might be useful to explain the context of your question. Is this a metaphysics question? Aesthetics question? Is there any philosopher or book that you acquired this idea from that you would like to know more about or have it elaborated upon? It sounds like you already have a good idea or have someone (Isaac Newton?) or something in mind if there is a "there must be..." in your inquiry.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:33 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;133745 wrote:
There must be absolute space because what? Explanation or a book that explains it better would be appreciated.


There are different kinds of space. Kant wrote of an intuitional or transcendental space. This is essentially just how humans automatically conceive of space.

Examples: how small/large is Euclidean point? How thin/thick is a Eucliden line? Is it possible to draw a real triangle as perfect as an ideal triangle?

How thin is a 2-dimensional plane? Wittgenstein says the right hand glove will fit on the left hand if we could rotate it in 4d space. Well, we can use our digital concept language to suggest this but our transcendental intuition of space will not allow us to visualize this. Einstein or Newton can cook up all the math-space they want. No matter how they slice it, it cannot be perfectly measured. The number pi is an example of how math does not perfectly fit transcendental space. We can't know space directly, but only intuitively or digitally. Space-in-itself is a negation of appearance. To know the transcendentals of continuity and number is to realize that non-human experience is non-conceivable.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 11:57 pm
@Reconstructo,
Arjuna;133745 wrote:
There must be absolute space because what? Explanation or a book that explains it better would be appreciated.


On further thought, if you are looking at it from some sort of metaphysical/(pseudo?) scientific perspective, absolute space is a little bit contradictory. To take one thing as "absolute," it must have an inherent unconditional existence, not relative to anything else. However, within the confines of anything "space," you inevitably get into relative notions.

Newton in Prinicpa describes space as infinitive, eternal, isotropic continuum, independent of the mind (though not a-posteriori derived), and most importantly, not affect things and not have things affect it.

Leibniz describes space in terms of a plenum, filled to the brim with all forms of monads (those which reflect the world) as well as the primary perception of the dominant monad (that which reflects the world most accurately). There is no empty space in Leibniz's conception

Kant would say that though we conceive objects, they are only as far as the imagination goes. Objects in turn are non-identical because they inhabit different parts of space. Essentially, space cannot have two unrelated sections of space (spatial relations).

Einstein would probably say that under the terms of special relativity theory, for two events distant from each other in given space, the distance apart in time will vary with the frame of reference we have. So our relation to one may be simultaneous compared to the 24 hours apart further in time. But even in this, the variance in temporal difference is not independent of spatial difference.

Newton points out perhaps some valid fundamentals but elaborations determine relativity, which seems to be contradictory. But anyway, you may like these books;

* The Shape of Space by G. Nerlich.
* Matter, Space, Motion by R. Sorabji
* Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time by R. Le Poidevin
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 12:01 am
@Arjuna,
Thanks Vide! This is such a great subject. Here's a bit of TLP. Who said Wittgenstein wasn't transcendental?

Quote:


6.36111 Kant's problem about the right hand and the left hand, which
cannot be made to coincide, exists even in two dimensions. Indeed, it
exists in one-dimensional space in which the two congruent figures,
a and b, cannot be made to coincide unless they are moved out of
this space. The right hand and the left hand are in fact completely
congruent. It is quite irrelevant that they cannot be made to coincide.
A right-hand glove could be put on the left hand, if it could be turned
round in four-dimensional space.


6.3751 For example, the simultaneous presence of two colours at the same
place in the visual field is impossible, in fact logically impossible,
since it is ruled out by the logical structure of colour. Let us think
how this contradiction appears in physics: more or less as follows--a
particle cannot have two velocities at the same time; that is to say, it
cannot be in two places at the same time; that is to say, particles that
are in different places at the same time cannot be identical. (It
is clear that the logical product of two elementary propositions can
neither be a tautology nor a contradiction. The statement that a point
in the visual field has two different colours at the same time is a
contradiction.)
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 07:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
"A genuine feature of physical objects outside of us, right-handedness and left-handedness, Kant had already decided in 1768, presupposes the existence of conscious beings. As he expresses it in the Prolegomena,
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 08:28 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;134279 wrote:

I'm still confused. Newton posits absolute space. There's no basis for absolute space other than intuition?

I'm still working on the glove thing. Thanks for the quotes and book references!


In my opinion, absolute space is transcendentally intuited. Of course this doesn't mean that space-in-itself is one way or another.
 
Emil
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 04:18 am
@Arjuna,
For a critique of absolute space theories (positive theories of space) and a case for a negative theory of space see Norman Swartz's Beyond Experience, chapter 8.

"Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints", by Norman Swartz
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Philosophy 101
  3. » Incongruent counterparts
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/28/2023 at 10:23:02