Kantian answers by Michael Alexeevich Popov

Michael Popov

Vladimir,

Thank you for good question on a - priorism.

Please, very short introduction before judgments -

A - PRIORISM IN PHYSICS

Some historical forms of post - Kantian a - priorism :

POINCARE. As is known, at least in Russian physical literature, Poincare developed the first Relativity theory based on Kantian foundations. He stated relativistic transformations ( Lorentz invariant ) ahead of Einstein and Minkowski. His approach to gravity theory is associated now with a whole family of consistent theories which cannot be geometrised in a Riemann manifold ( Finsler, etc ). He was the first theorist who suggested that any physics is the physics of principles; where any physical law can be broken up into an a priori principle and an a posterior law. Following Kant, Poincare made essential contribution in stability problem. As known, Newton thought that the Solar system was inherently UNSTABLE and that the stability we perceived is due to divine hand... Later, the results obtained by Laplace and Lagrange, and also Gauss made it clear that Newton was wrong and Solar system is stable naturally perhaps as long as a million years. Poincare developed mathematical stability theory where stability of Solar system is connected with Kantian transcendental idealistic existence of "subjective" unchangeable intuition of Space.

EDDINGTON (1882-1944).Eddington made own attempts to extract Kantian idealism from Einstein's Relativity. In particularly, he discovered his famous synthetic a priori principle - it is possible to calculate the exact values of all metaconstants, summarizing timeless relations between the basic constants of Nature by a priori mathematical deductions from synthetic principles. Eddington introduced so called "E - algebra " as a sort of transcendental algebra based on post-Kantian intuition of space - and - time. He established Club for discussions on numerical coincidences of the Universe ( Alternative Natural Philosophy Association including such members as Dirac, Jordan, Schrodinger,Bondi,Landsberg, I'd like to add Matvey Bronstein as well)

MILNE (1896-1950).Milne attempted to consider the law of nature as geometrical theorems based on Kant's intuition of a priori space.

Today theorists try to translate Kant Idealism into new heuristics for future Unified Physics and Holographic philosophy, however, at the same time they unreasonably reject Kantian transcendental idealism as a whole.

Michael Popov

Dear Joe,

I had found that such judgment as " Only nature can produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it " is analytic but not synthetic judgment. Following Kant Transcendental Aesthetics we can easy transform such sort of tautology into opposite judgment :" only nature can produce a reality so complex ...". Synthetic a priori judgment is a mathematical theorem, having mathematical proof, and Kantian transcendental idealism is foundation of contemporary ( philosophically speaking unconsciously unified already ) physics.

It is possible, nevertheless, to rewrite your conjecture " the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface in one infinite dimension..." as a particular case of Hilbert's Space. However, in this case you need mathematical proof and new non - Hilbert's theory based on non - Kantian " realistic" foundations.

Best

Michael

Vladimir Rogozhin

Many thanks, Michael, for very valuable information, additional to your essay and your comment on my forum. Is it possible to find your articles on the Internet, including in Russian?

Vladimir

Dizhechko Semyonovich

Dear Michael Alexeevich Popov

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Michael Popov

Vladimir,

Philosophically, I am neo-neo-Kantian ( Р±Р»РёР¶Рµ РїРѕР¶Р°Р»СѓР№ to philosopher - mathematician Dimitri Gawronsky ( 1883-1955 ) Marburg school of neo - Kantian philosophy. Some most sensitive details :

WITH KANT BEYOND KANT

1.Marburg school of neo - Kantian idealists ( Cohen, Natorp,Cassirer, Gawronsky )is continental group of philosopher - mathematicians.

2.Gawronsky's Urteil Principle : the philosopher must not rely on idle metaphysical speculations but has to know how synthetic a priori is actually applied in scientific practice (1912)

3.Reality is the systematic knowledge of Nature as it arises from the wild mindless mathematical synthetic a priori laws.

4." The real is clarified by the ( a priori ) ideal ".

5.What cannot be thought did not make sense. What cannot be justified by mathematical thought, must be posted by mathematics.

5.When physicists assume the first quasi - particle of the becoming Universe they must also assume an existence of mathematical rules and transcendental constants deduced from some always - existing MetaLife/Kant's РћСЂРіР°РЅРѕРЅ or Holograms generators ( in today's terms ). Hence, quite naturally to find what I called " logical invariant of neo - Kantian idealism ".

6.Hence, in Marburg - Urteil style my publications are connected with idealism inspired mathematical and physical exact results published in professional journals:

On Plato's periodic perfect numbers - Bulletin des Sciences Mathematiques, v 123 issue 1 Jan 1999;

Р' Р·Р°С‰РёС‚Сѓ РєРІР°РЅС‚РѕРІРѕРіРѕ РёРґРµР°Р»РёР·РјР° - РЈСЃРїРµС...Рё Р¤РёР·РёС‡РµСЃРєРёС... РќР°СѓРє С‚.46 в„- 12 ( free Russian version PDF at www.ufn.ru )

P vs NP problem in the field anthropology. ArXiv : 0904.3074 (Cs.OH) 2009

Cubic groups - Cryptology ePrint Archive: report 2010/653; etc.

Michael Popov

Boris,

Cassirer ( Marburg neo- Kantian idealist ) made similar but alternative attempt in 1910s. He used Leibniz's generalization of Cartesian mathematical physics, where Leibniz's ideal things ( choses ideales ) and wellfounded fictions (fictions bien fondees ) are considered as a particular case of Kantian dualism. In order to develop it he used " transcendental method ".

I think it is very important to publish philosophical method which you used to achieve particular result.

Best

Michael

pjackson

Michael,

A very interesting synopsis. I studied philosophy long ago and always maintain connections between the hard physical mechanisms of nature and philosophical analysis in hand with systems of logic.

I see no good argument why you hypothesis (and Kant's!) isn't a valid one and can't hold. Of course evidence is lacking, but that's never a disqualifier, and perhaps it may not be very useful, but again neither are scoring criteria here so mine will lift yours!

You seemed no to commit yourself on QM, which is certainly wise! do you agree with Bells view that it's 'founding fathers were in fact wrong' no looking for some classical derivation or believing one possible? I do, and my essay identifies one without problems with the STR, though as philosophy suggests, science would likely never now admit one!

Is there a solution and philosophy recognisable by physicists to allow understanding to advance from ever deeper embedded doctrine? I hope you may read and give your views on mine.

Very best wishes

Peter

Dizhechko Semyonovich

Michael, in philosophy I've been looking for, but couldn't find the deep answer to the question - what is matter? The only thing that philosophers might say - matter exists in space and in time. However, I rejected this statement and replaced it with another - matter creates space and time. From this it follows that I in their studies reject the dualism and pluralism in the existence of matter, arguing that space is a matter which is moving relative to itself.

It seems Kant argued that man cannot achieve the ideal close to him, he destroys it. This applies to us, the Russians, who built a perfect society - communism. Approaching it, we destroyed it. Likewise, it is impossible to build an ideal physics, there will always be pluralism, as many people, so many opinions. So I'm suspecting that you have underestimated my essay to give you the highest rating because you have learned that there is a New Cartesian Physic.

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

Michael Popov

Dear SNP Gupta,

As is known, Kant was idealist but not solipsist. He developed theory of stability of our Galaxy and Solar system without Newtonian assumption of God's hand... Later Poincare and Perelman , Landau and Vlasov ( Vlasov'equation) had found some kind of fundamental refinement of the theory. Some difficulties remain in understanding of Kantian idea of transcendental goals in Nature in the terms of his Transcendental aesthetics.

Some historical reflections of similar problems were made recently by Michael Friedman , neo - Kantian philosopher from Stanford.

Best

Michael

Michael Popov

Dear Peter,

AI&Kant topic represents very interesting and deep question - please, some details

AI AND KANT

There are two different schools of thinking on AI - "analytical" and post - Kantian or "phenomenological". Analytical theorists of AI assume that some scientific nonidealistic psychology must be realistic foundation for any AI projects, however, phenomenologists reject that assumption ( see, for example Boden's Mind and Machine, Oxford University Press, 2006 ).They argue that all our scientific concepts arise merely from meaningful consciousness, but not from Kant- like transcendental intuition ( connected with synthetic a priori judgments )... I attempted to formulate such kind of "transcendental approach" to AI, where 200 years tradition of neo - Kantianism and Kant's intuitionist logic are translated into some exact protocol in 2000s ( adapted for orbital experiments ). Some similar attempt was made by B.C. Smith in his Metaphysics of computation, intentionality and objects ( Cambridge University Press, 1996)

I think neo - Kantian transcendental solution could be foundation for deeper understanding of AI in the 21st century as well.?

Remark on evidence.

Kantianism as embedded doctrine of foundations of contemporary physics is already tested conjecture. Relativity with its embedded Kantianism is well tested scientific theory. No doubts.

contact : quantlab@outlook.com

with the best wishes

Michael

pjackson

Michael,

Thanks, that's clarified a little. I must say I've been rather firmly in the camp of Daniel Dennett, both in terms of his very integrated philosophy/science view, but also specifically on this topic. I'm not sure the Dennett approach falls into either of the schools' you identify, does he?

I recently posted to Torsten Asslemeyer about the error of trying to understand how computers really work from just considering what's on the screen, mouse and keyboard and how they interact. That was a Dennett example.

To me too much of philosophy seems to try to do so rather than recognising that the EFFECT of computers on society, also a valid matter, is quite different. AI 'works' and 'learns' etc as emergent from the design of the small scale particle interaction mechanisms of a computer, modelling those of our brains.

Do you think philosophy should better recognise, address and encompass that physical reality to regain ground from or maybe 'confidence of' pure scientists?

You didn't comment as to whether you read my essay or not. There's an important classical derivation of QM there removing the 'weirdness' which I'd hoped you may have a view on.

Best wishes

Peter