Timeline for Do scalar fields satisfy Kant's indefinitely-divisible matter thesis?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 12:18 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 78 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 11:25 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 214 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 11:05 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 488 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:36 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 60 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:34 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking♦ | Thus, while him coming up with the term indefinite is certainly interesting, we should not use that term in this application imho, or if so, only to illustrate the difference between indefinite and infinite. | |
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:32 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking♦ | @KristianBerry Did some edits, do not know whether they clarify something for you. I would still hold that scalars and field theory are "of the mathematicians", a theoretical construct. Of course, we could trivially say that any experimentally validated solution to the equations available to us suggests that we can only divide indefinitely, but that is beside the point: Kant uses the difference because of the indefinite richness of a manifold of intuition vs. a causal chain with "quantified" parts (which are totalities, but irrelevantly so in this treatment) which we always only know a part of | |
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:23 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 390 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:21 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | But so I wondered if scalar fields might be another mathematical development that answered, indirectly, to one of Kant's theories, not quite to discredit him or conflict with him, but simply to show another solution to a formal question he legitimately posed, and gave a valiant enough attempt at a solution of his own to. | |
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:19 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | My understanding is also that Kant denied the existence of perfect physical voids, and used this as a premise in the presentation of the Second Antinomy later. Pure matter that could not be empirically divided but could be a priori divided across empty interior spaces was ruled out, I thought, so that simple substances were likewise ruled out. | |
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:17 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | I appreciate the translation issues you bring up, I was worried about those in the background. But my stronger claim, here, would involve saying that Kant did not fully understand all of the concepts he was using, the case in point being the finite-indefinite-infinite trichotomy, which I think is technically incomplete, though Kant was not, apparently, in a position to recognize the gap (he almost closes in on the idea of transfinite numbers when he forms the theory of the categories, but then forthwith denies that infinity can be numerical in the required way). | |
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:08 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 390 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 10:00 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1001 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 9:50 | history | edited | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1001 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2022 at 9:45 | history | answered | Philip Klöcking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |