Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Time was, when she (Metaphysics) was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honour. Now, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsaken, like Hecuba .. her empire gradually broke up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of anarchy; while the sceptics, like nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to time those who had organized themselves into civil communities. But their number was, very happily, small; and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
This can never become popular, and, indeed, has no occasion to be so; for fine-spun arguments in favour of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths. On the other hand, since both inevitably force themselves on every man who rises to the height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough investigation of the rights of speculative reason, and thus to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
If we take away the subject (Humans), or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as appearances, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. .... not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but even their circular (spherical) form, nay, the space itself through which they fall (motion), is nothing in itself, but both are mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensible intuition, whilst the transcendental object remains for us utterly unknown. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Immanuel Kant is the most famous metaphysicist throughout
the history of philosophy, and there is no doubt that his 'Critique of
Pure Reason' is the most comprehensive analysis of Metaphysics since Aristotle's
pioneering work which founded this subject. Unfortunately for humanity,
Kant made one small, and yet fundamental, mistake, as I shall briefly explain.
Firstly, Kant is correct that Space is a priori, or first necessary for us to have senses (which are a posteriori). His error is to assume that Time is also a priori or necessary for us to sense the motion of matter in Space. He writes;
There are two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space and time.
And from this he concludes that because Space and Time cannot be united, they must both be merely ideas. His error can be found in the following quote where he writes;
... even that of motion, which unites in itself both elements (Space and Time), presuppose something empirical. Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something movable. But space considered in itself contains nothing movable; consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience -in other words, is an empirical datum.
Please read this quote several times, for it contains an error that has had profound repercussions for humanity. The error? That 'space considered in itself contains nothing movable'. And this error then leads Kant to conclude that;
..in respect to the form of appearances, much may be said a priori, whilst of the thing in itself, which may lie at the foundation of these appearances, it is impossible to say anything.
The solution to this error is to realise that the exact opposite is true, that Space considered in itself contains wave motions, i.e. Space physically exists as a substance with the properties of a Wave Medium and thus contains Wave Motions. Thus we should write that the two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, are namely Space and Motion - that we must place in this a priori concept of Space the correct meaning - that Space is a Wave-Medium and thus contains within it a second thing, Wave Motion. Thus we move from the Metaphysics of Space and Time (which also requires 'particles' and 'fields') to the Metaphysics of Space and Motion (where particles and fields are caused by the spherical Wave Structure of Matter) and thus finally unite these two things (Space and Motion as the wave Motion of One thing Space) that give rise to all other things.
It is also important to understand what Aristotle wrote on Metaphysics as he was very close to the truth as the following quotes demonstrate (I consider Aristotle to be the most brilliant of all philosophers).
The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is
exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have
the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and
in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has.
..about its coming into being and its doings and about all its alterations we think that we have knowledge when we know the source of its movement. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest. And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle, that from which comes the beginning of the change. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Once we solve Kant's misunderstanding of Time being a priori rather than Motion, (that the Spherical Wave Motion of Space causes not only Time, but also Matter and Forces) then we can describe Reality correctly from a new Metaphysical foundation - that Space Exists as a Wave-Medium and Matter Exists as a Spherical Standing Wave Motion of Space. With this new synthesis of a priori meaning added to the concept of Space, we then find that the previous errors and contradictions (paradoxes) simply disappear. Now this is a profound solution, for this error of Matter 'particles' moving about in Space and Time has now existed for 2,500 years, and has detrimentally influence such great minds as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Mach, and Einstein, and has ultimately led to our current Postmodern Idealism and confusion.
I appreciate that this is a rather abrupt introduction, below you will find a brief summary of the Wave Structure of Matter that will make things more clear. Following this you will find a detailed explanation of Immanuel Kant's Metaphysics from this new Foundation of the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter.
On the left side of this page you will find links to the main articles
which explain and solve many of the problems of postmodern Metaphysics,
Physics and Philosophy from the new foundation of the Metaphysics of Space
and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). With respect to the problems of
Idealism I also strongly recommend you read the web page on George
Immanuel Kant clearly realized the unique importance of Space as being a priori (necessary) for us to be able to experience and sense the world around us, and that Metaphysics (and thus Physics) depend upon this a priori knowledge.
Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions. (Kant, 1781)
Unfortunately for Human knowledge, Kant made a simple error when he assumed Time as the second a priori existent, rather than the PROPERTIES of Space as a wave-medium.
Time is not an empirical concept. For neither co-existence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. (Kant, 1781)
And because Kant could not unite Space and Time back to One common connected thing he assumed that they must exist merely as ideas or representations of the world. His error can be clearly seen when he writes that motion is empirical / a posteriori and first depends upon the a priori existence of time.
Here I shall add that the concept of change, and with it the concept of motion, as change of place, is possible only through and in the representation of time. & Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something movable. But space considered in itself contains nothing movable; consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience -in other words, is an empirical datum. (Kant, 1781)
The correct answer is that Space in itself must have Properties. i.e. That Space exists with the properties of a wave-medium and thus contains wave-motions which ultimately cause not only time, but also matter and its forces. (Kant made the common mistake of only considering Motion of matter particles and not the (wave) Motion of Space itself!) Thus Space and Motion are a priori and first necessary for us to experience the world. This then explains the current confusion of modern physics due to the incorrect conception of the Motion of matter 'particles' in Space and Time, rather than the spherical wave-motion of Space causing both matter 'particles' and time. Significantly, Kant realized the importance of this problem of synthetic a priori knowledge as the foundation of the Sciences and thus of certainty of knowledge.
Upon the solution of this problem, or upon sufficient proof of the impossibility of synthetical knowledge a priori, depends the existence or downfall of metaphysics. (Kant, 1781)
And most importantly, this also determines the existence or downfall of humanity;
Thus a public can only attain enlightenment slowly. Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass."
I shall begin with Kant's Introduction to his Metaphysics, which gives an appropriate grandness to this beautiful and important subject. This will then explain the Metaphysical problems that he faced and his partial solution. (Which was a disturbing solution for Philosophy / Humanity to arrive at, as Kant concluded that we could never understand what we actually are as Humans in the Universe, and which has ultimately resulted in our currently confusing state of Postmodernism).
Following this, I shall explain the two minor errors that Kant made;
i) To assume Space, Time and Causation rather than Space and Motion; and
ii) To assume that Matter is somehow Atomic ('Particles') thus to incorrectly separate the body and mind from the external world. This then leads us to a simple, sensible, and complete solution for the Metaphysical problem of how we can have direct Knowledge of the External World.
Before starting, let me first add a delightful and important thought from Aristotle, that sums up both how feeble our Minds are (blind to the obvious) and that even philosophical work that is wrong is still very useful, for it may well point out the correct path to those who follow and further explore. (For philosophers must be adventurers and explorers of the intellectual world, which takes a certain courage and determined self belief I think.)
'And perhaps its difficulty exists in two ways, not in the things but in us as responsible for them. For just as bats' eyes are towards daylight, so in our soul is the mind towards those things that are clearest of all. And we should not only be grateful to those in whose opinions we share but also to those who have gone astray. For even the latter have contributed something, since they have prepared the condition for us.' (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of human reason.
It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to even higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labors must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called metaphysics.
Time was, when she was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honor. Now, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsaken, ... ..her empire gradually broke up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of anarchy; while the sceptics, like nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to time those who had organized themselves into civil communities. But their number was, very happily, small; and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan. At present, as all methods, according to the general persuasion, have been tried in vain, there reigns naught but weariness and complete indifferentism - the mother of chaos and night in the scientific world, but at the same time the source of, or at least the prelude to, the re-creation and reinstallation of a science, when it has fallen into confusion, obscurity, and disuse from ill-directed effort.
We very often hear complaints of the shallowness of the present age, and of the decay of profound science. But I do not think that those which rest upon a secure foundation, such as Mathematics, Physical Science, etc., in the least deserve this reproach, but that they rather maintain their ancient fame, and in the latter case, indeed, far surpass it. The same would be the case with the other kinds of cognition, if their principles were but firmly established. In the absence of this security, indifference, doubt, and finally, severe criticism are rather signs of a habit of thorough thought. Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds of exemption from the examination of this tribunal. But, if they are exempted, they become the subjects of just suspicion, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination. I do not mean by this a criticism of books and systems, but a critical inquiry into the faculty of reason, with reference to the knowledge to which it strives to attain independently of all experience; in other words, the solution of the question regarding the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics, and the determination of the origin, as well as of the extent and limits of this science. All this must be done on the basis of principles.
This path - the only one now remaining - has been entered upon by me; and I flatter myself that I have, in this way, discovered the cause of - and consequently the mode of removing - all the errors which have hitherto set reason at variance with itself, in the sphere of non-empirical thought. I have not returned an evasive answer to the questions of reason, by alleging the inability and limitation of the faculties of the mind; I have, on the contrary, examined them completely in the light of principles, and after having discovered the cause of the doubts and contradictions into which reason fell, have solved them to its perfect satisfaction.
It is the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations. My chief aim in this work has been completeness; and I make bold to say, that there is not a single metaphysical problem that does not find its solution, or at least the key to its solution, here. Pure reason is a perfect unity.
While I say this, I think I see upon the countenance of the reader signs of dissatisfaction mingle with contempt, when he hears declarations which sound so boastful and extravagant; and yet they are beyond comparison more moderate than those advanced by the commonest author of the commonest philosophical programme, in which the dogmatist professes to demonstrate the simple nature of the soul, or the necessity of a first beginning of the world. Such a dogmatist promises to extend human knowledge beyond the limits of possible experience; while I humbly confess that this is completely beyond my power. Instead of any such attempt, I confine myself to the examination of reason alone and its pure thought; and I do not need to seek far to attain complete knowledge of these, because they have their seat in my own mind. As regards certitude, I have fully convinced myself that, in this sphere of thought, opinion is perfectly inadmissible, and that everything which bears the least semblance of an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions.
For it is a necessary condition of all knowledge that is to be established upon a priori grounds, that it shall be held to be absolutely necessary; much more is this the case with an attempt to determine all pure a priori knowledge, and to furnish the standard - and consequently an example - of all apodeictic (philosophical) certitude. ..a mere opinion, and that the reader must therefore be at liberty to hold a different opinion. But I beg to remind him, that, if my subjective deduction does not produce in his mind the conviction of its certitude at which I aimed, the objective deduction, with which alone the present work is properly concerned, is in every respect satisfactory. For metaphysics has to deal only with principles and with the limitations of its own employment as determined by these principles.
That space and time are only forms of sensible intuition, and hence are only conditions of the existence of things as appearances; that, moreover, we have no concepts of the understanding, and, consequently, no elements for knowing things, except in so far as a corresponding intuition can be given to these concepts; that, accordingly, we can have no knowledge of an object, as a thing in itself, but only as an object of sensible intuition, that is, as appearance- all this is proved in the Analytical part of the Critique; and from this the limitation of all possible speculative knowledge to the mere objects of experience, follows as a necessary result. For this result, then, we are indebted to a criticism which warns us of our unavoidable ignorance with regard to things in themselves, and establishes the necessary limitation of our theoretical knowledge to mere appearances.
We have intended, then, to say, that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearances; that the things which we intuit are not in themselves the same as our representations of them in intuition, nor are their relations in themselves so constituted as they appear to us; and that if we take away the subject, or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as appearances, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us.
What may be the nature of objects considered as things
in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility
is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our own mode of perceiving
them, which is peculiar to us, and which, though not of necessity pertaining
to every being, does so to human beings. With this alone we have to do.
Space and time are the pure forms thereof; sensation the matter. The
former alone can we know a priori, that is, antecedent to all
actual perception; and for this reason such knowledge is called pure
intuition. The latter is that in our knowledge which is called knowledge a
posteriori, that is, empirical intuition. The former appertain absolutely
and necessarily to our sensibility, of whatsoever kind our sensations
may be; the latter may be of very diversified character. Supposing that
we should carry our empirical intuition even to the very highest degree
of clearness, we should not thereby advance one step nearer to a appearances
of the constitution of objects as things in themselves. For we could
only, at best, arrive at a complete appearances of our own mode of intuition,
that is, of our sensibility, and this always under the conditions originally
attaching to the subject, namely, the conditions of space and time; while
the question, 'What are objects considered as things in themselves?'
remains unanswerable even after the most thorough knowledge of appearances.
..not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but even their circular
form, nay, the space itself through which they fall, is nothing in itself,
but both are mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensible
intuition, whilst the transcendental object remains for us utterly unknown.
(Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
(End of Kant Summary)
So in a sense Kant gave us a negative solution, for he thought he was explaining the necessary limitations of our Knowledge. He may well be right given his founding principles of Space, Time and Causation. His problem is that these foundations are incorrect. Once we understand the Metaphysics of Space and Motion though, then we can demonstrate the simple sensible solution to Kant's problem, and thus provide a positive solution to Metaphysics (for the first time.) It is now useful to briefly explaining some of Kant's language and then show how his language can be applied to solve his problems.
'..if we have a proposition which contains the idea of necessity in its very conception, it is a judgement a priori; ..an empirical (a posteriori) judgement never exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed and comparative universally (by induction); therefore, the most we can say is - so far as we have hitherto observed - there is no exception to this or that rule. If, on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori. Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure (a priori) from empirical (a posteriori) knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other.'The attempt to think these objects will hereafter furnish an excellent test of the new method of thought which we have adopted, and which is based on the principle that we only know in things a priori that which we ourselves place in them.' (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
In all judgement wherein the relation of a subject to the predicate is thought (I mention affirmative judgements only here; the application to negative will be very easy), this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to the subject A, as somewhat which is contained (though covertly) in concept A; or the predicate B lies completely outside the concept A, although it stands in connection with it. In the first instance, I term the judgement analytical, in the second, synthetical. The former (Analytic) may be called explicative, the latter (Synthetic) augmentative judgements; because the former add in the predicate nothing to the concept of the subject, but only analyze it into its constituent concepts, which were thought already in the subject, although in a confused manner; the latter add to our concepts of the subject a predicate which was not contained in it, and which no analysis could ever have discovered therein.
For example, when I say, All bodies are extended, this is an analytical judgement. For I need not go beyond the concept of body in order to find extension connected with it, but merely analyze the concept, that is, become conscious of the manifold properties which I think in that concept, in order to discover this predicate in it: it is therefore an analytical judgement. On the other hand, when I say, 'All bodies are heavy', the predicate is something totally different from that which I think in the mere concept of a body. By the addition of such a predicate, therefore, it becomes a synthetical judgement. Empirical judgements, as such, are always synthetical.' (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
For whence could our experience itself acquire its certainty, if all the rules on which it depends were themselves empirical, and consequently contingent? No one, therefore, can admit the validity of the use of such rules as first principles. But, for the present, we may content ourselves with having established the fact, that we do possess and exercise a faculty of pure a priori knowledge; and secondly, with having pointed out the proper tests of such knowledge, namely, universality and necessity.
Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgements a priori, as principles. I shall adduce two propositions. For instance, the proposition, 'In all changes of the material world, the quantity of matter remains unchanged' ; or, that, 'In all communication of motion, action and reaction must always be equal.' In both of these, not only is the necessity, and therefore their origin a priori clear, but also that they are synthetical propositions. For in the concept of matter, I do not think its permanency, but merely its presence in space, which it fills. I therefore really go out of and beyond the concepts of matter, in order to think on to it something a priori, which I did not think in it. The proposition is therefore not analytical, but synthetical, and nevertheless conceived a priori; and so it is with regard to the other propositions of the pure part of natural science.
As to metaphysicians, even if we look upon it merely as an attempted science, yet, from the nature of human reason, an indispensable one, we find that it must contain synthetical a priori knowledge. It is not merely the duty of metaphysics to dissect, and thereby analytically to illustrate the concepts which we form a priori of things; but we seek to widen the range of our a priori knowledge. For this purpose, we must avail ourselves of such principles as add something to the original concept- something not identical with, nor contained in it, and by means of synthetical judgements a priori, leave behind us the limits of experience; for example, in the proposition, 'the world must have a beginning,' and such like. Thus metaphysics, at least in its intention, consists merely of synthetical propositions a priori.
That metaphysics has hitherto remained in so vacillating a state of uncertainty and contradiction, is only to be attributed to the fact, that this great problem, and perhaps even the difference between analytical and synthetical judgements, did not sooner suggest itself to philosophers. Upon the solution of this problem, or upon sufficient proof of the impossibility of synthetical knowledge a priori, depends the existence or downfall of metaphysics. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
What Kant writes here is fundamentally important to Metaphysics and thus to all Human Knowledge. So now it is time to explain the solution.
Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived
from outward experiences. For, in order that certain sensations may relate
to something outside me (that is, to something which occupies a different
part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I
may represent them not merely as outside of and next to each other, but
also in separate places, the representation of space cannot be borrowed
from the relations of external phenomena through experience; but, on the
contrary, this external experience is itself only possible through the
said antecedent representation.
Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions. We never can imagine or make a representation to ourselves of the non-existence of space, though we may easily enough think that no objects are found in it. It must, therefore, be considered as the condition of the possibility of appearances, and by no means as a determination dependent on them, and is a representation a priori, which necessarily supplies the basis for external appearances. Moreover, these parts cannot antecede this one all-embracing space, as the component parts from which the aggregate can be made up, but can be thought only as existing in it.
Space is essentially one, and multiplicity in it; consequently the general concept of spaces depends solely upon limitations. Hence it follows that an a priori intuition (which is not empirical) lies at the root of all our concepts of space. Space is represented as an infinite given quantity. Now every concept must indeed be considered as a representation which is contained in an infinite multitude of different possible representations (as their common characteristic), which therefore, comprises these under itself; but no concept, as such, can be so conceived, as if it contained within itself an infinite multitude of representations. Nevertheless, space is so conceived, for all parts of space, even to infinity, exist at once. Consequently, the original representation of space is an intuition a priori, and not a concept.
..space contains all which can appear to us externally. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Kant is correct that the concept of Time only exists as an 'intuition' of our Mind, and not as a thing in itself. Kant's error was to not realize that Time is Caused by the Wave Motion of Space, and that it is actually Motion (not Time) that is necessary (a priori) for us to sense things. We can easily understand this by simply imagining that matter in Space could not Move - then we could neither think, nor sense anything - the world would be 'frozen' and stationary, and there would be no time or change. Thus we realize the fundamental a priori nature of Motion, that the Wave-Motion of Space does actually exist and is a priori necessary for us to sense things and experience Time. (See article on Time)
Time - The Spherical Standing Wave Motion of Space causes matter's activity and the phenomena of Time. This confirms Aristotle and Spinoza's connection of Motion and Time, and most significantly connects these two things back to one thing Space. Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it. (Aristotle)
Thus the following quote from Kant is clearly wrong. Time is an empirical concept, caused by the wave motion of Space.
Time is not an empirical concept. For neither co-existence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. Time is a necessary representation, lying at the foundation of all our intuitions. With regard to appearances in general, we cannot think away time from them, and represent them to ourselves as out of and unconnected with time. Here I shall add that the concept of change, and with it the concept of motion, as change of place, is possible only through and in the representation of time. .. our concept of time explains the possibility of so much synthetical knowledge a priori, as is exhibited in the general doctrine of motion, which is not a little fruitful. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
However he is correct, Time is merely and idea, not a real thing in itself.
What we have now then set forth teaches, therefore, the empirical reality of time; that is, its objective validity in reference to all objects which can ever be presented to our senses. And as our intuition is always sensible, no object ever can be presented to us in experience, which does not come under the conditions of time. On the other hand, we deny to time all claim to absolute reality; that is, we deny that it, without regard to the form of our sensible intuition, absolutely inheres in things in themselves, never can be presented to us through the medium of the senses. Herein consists, therefore, the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if we abstract the subjective conditions of sensible intuition, it is nothing, and cannot be reckoned as subsisting or inhering in objects as things in themselves, independently of its relation to our intuition. But absolute reality.. cannot be granted it. Time is nothing but the form of our internal intuition. If we take away from it the special condition of our sensibility, the concept of time also vanishes; and it inheres not in the objects themselves, but solely in the subject which intuits them. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
..the transcendental concept of appearances in space is a critical admonition, that, in general, nothing which is intuited in space is a thing in itself, and that space is not a form which belongs as a property to things; but that objects are quite unknown to us in themselves, and what we call outward objects, are nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility, whose form is space, but whose real correlate, the thing in itself, is not known by means of these representations, nor ever can be, but respecting which, in experience, no inquiry is ever made. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
This is wrong, for we now know that Matter / Objects are not 'Particles' somehow separate from Space, but that Matter is Spherically Spatially extended as a Structure of Space, (a Spherical Standing Wave Structure to be precise). Thus it is no longer possible to talk of Matter separate from Space (or Time / Motion as both Einstein's Relativity and the Metaphysics of Space and Motion have amply demonstrated).
On the contrary, if we ascribe objective reality to these forms of representation, it becomes impossible to avoid changing everything into mere illusory appearance. For if we regard space and time as properties, which must be found in objects as things in themselves, if they are to be possible at all, and reflect on the absurdities in which we then find ourselves involved, inasmuch as we are compelled to admit the existence of two infinite things, which are nevertheless not substances, nor anything really inhering in substances, nay, to admit that they are the necessary conditions of the existence of all things, and moreover, that they must continue to exist, although all existing things were annihilated - we cannot blame the good Berkeley for degrading bodies to mere illusory appearances. Nay, even our own existence, which would in this case depend upon the self-existent reality of such a mere nonentity as time, would necessarily be changed with it into mere illusory appearance- an absurdity which no one has yet been guilty of. On the other hand, those who maintain the absolute reality of time and space, whether as essentially subsisting, or only inhering, as modifications, in things, must find themselves at utter variance with the principles of experience itself. For, if they decide for the first view, and make space and time into substances, this being the side taken by mathematical natural philosophers, they must admit two self-subsisting nonentities, infinite and eternal, which exist (yet without there being anything real) for the purpose of containing in themselves everything that is real. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Again, the solution is simple, if we reject Time as an independent existent, both Space and Motion (as we have earlier explained) are Infinite and Eternal (and real), i.e. we can clearly understand how both Space and the Wave-Motion of Space can exist, side by side, as Infinite and Eternal things.
Please read the following quotes from Kant carefully;
I apply the term transcendental to all knowledge which is not so much occupied with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects, so far as this mode of knowledge is possible a priori. Time and space are, therefore, two sources of knowledge, from which, a priori, various synthetical knowledge can be drawn. Not only in judgements, however, but even in concepts, is an a priori origin manifest. For example, if we take away by degrees from our empirical concepts of a body all that can be referred to experience - color, hardness or softness, weight, even impenetrability- the body will then vanish; but the space which it occupied still remains, and this it is utterly impossible to annihilate in thought. The attempt to think these objects will hereafter furnish an excellent test of the new method of thought which we have adopted, and which is based on the principle that we only know in things a priori that which we ourselves place in them. For the analysis, that is, mere dissection of concepts, contained in this or that, is not the aim of, but only a preparation for metaphysics proper, which has for its object the extension, by means of synthesis, of our a priori knowledge. And for this purpose, mere analysis is of course useless, because it only shows what is contained in these concepts, but not how we arrive, a priori, at them; and this it is its duty to show, in order to be able afterwards to determine their valid use in regard to all objects of experience, to all knowledge in general. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Thus Kant is saying (correctly);
i) That all things ultimately must exist in Space, which is thus a priori (as it is first necessary for Space to exist before we can sense (empirical / a posteriori) objects in Space)
ii) We only know in things a priori that which we ourselves place in them. That metaphysics proper, has for its object the extension, by means of synthesis, of our a priori knowledge. I absolutely agree with Kant! His error is to say
..there are two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space and time.
This is wrong, the 'two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, are namely Space and Motion' and that we must place in this a priori concept of Space the correct meaning - that Space is a Wave-Medium and thus contains within it a second thing, Wave Motion (and we do this using the Principles of the WSM). And now, finally we come to the heart of Kant's problem, which is clear from this following VERY important quote;
..even that of motion, which unites in itself both elements (Space and Time), presuppose something empirical. Motion, for example, presupposes the perception of something movable. But space considered in itself contains nothing movable; consequently motion must be something which is found in space only through experience -in other words, is an empirical datum.
And this error then leads Kant to conclude that;
..in respect to the form of appearances, much may be said a priori, whilst of the thing in itself, which may lie at the foundation of these appearances, it is impossible to say anything. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
As I have explained though, once we solve Kant's misunderstanding of Time and Motion, then we can create a new Metaphysics at this most fundamental level of Reality, that Space Exists as a Wave-Medium and Matter Exists as a Spherical Standing Wave-Motion of Space, and thus with this new synthesis of a priori meaning added to the concept of Space (by defining its Properties) we then find that the previous errors and contradictions (paradoxes) simply disappear. Now this is a profound solution, for this error in understanding Space and Time has continued for the past two hundred years and has detrimentally influence such great minds as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Mach, and Einstein, and has ultimately led to our current postmodern confusion. The following quote from Nietzsche clearly demonstrates how this error of Kant's has continually manifested in the minds of our past philosophers;
Intuitive representation, however, embraces two things: firstly, the present, motley, changing world, pressing on us in all experiences; secondly, the conditions by means of which alone any experience of this world becomes possible: time and space. For these are able to be intuitively apprehended, purely in themselves and independent of any experience, i.e., they can be perceived, although they are without definite contents. (Nietzsche, 1890)
As we have explained, Kant regarded Space and Time as being a priori (i.e. Universal and not from our senses, but necessary for us to have senses). Most significantly though, Kant argues, incorrectly, that: Space and Time, AND our Senses existed as ideas in our mind, and did not directly correspond to the 'real world';
... if we take away the subject (Humans), or even only the subjective constitution of our senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of objects in space and time, but even space and time themselves disappear; and that these, as appearances, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. .... not only are the raindrops mere appearances, but even their circular (spherical) form, nay, the space itself through which they fall (motion), is nothing in itself, but both are mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensible intuition, whilst the transcendental object remains for us utterly unknown. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Let us then briefly consider this concept of 'Reality' for it can be taken in two important ways:
Kant argues that Space Time (and the Causal Motion of Matter in Space) are our constructions of our own mind. Kant still agrees that there is a physical reality, but it is always separate from our ideas and senses of it.
Hence this determination of my existence, and consequently my internal experience itself, must depend on something permanent which is not in me, which can be, therefore, only in something external to me, to which I must look upon myself as being related. Thus the reality of the external sense is necessarily connected with that of the internal, in order to the possibility of experience in general; that is, I am just as certainly conscious that there are things external to me related to my sense, as I am that I myself exist, as determined in time. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Thus Kant's problem, which he cannot solve, is that he does not know 'what exists' thus he does not know how we are 'necessarily connected' to Matter in the Space around us, as we must be (and Kant acknowledges this) if we are to be able to sense these 'external' objects. Thus as is common in Philosophy, Kant had to finally admit defeat and depend upon the concept of 'God' to explain these 'necessary connections'. He argues;
For as conditions of all existence in general, Space and Time must be conditions for the existence of God also. But if we do not thus make them objective forms of all things, there is no other way left than to make them subjective forms of our mode of intuition - external and internal - which is called sensible, because it is not primitive, that is, is not such as gives in itself the existence of the object of the intuition (a mode of intuition which, so far as we can judge, can belong only to the prime being), but is dependent on the existence of the object, and is possible, therefore, only on condition that the representative faculty of the subject is affected by the object. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1781)
Firstly, you can read this treatise and determine for yourselves - does this language of Matter existing as Spherical Standing Waves in Space logically deduce what we sense in the Motion of Matter in the Space around us. I can answer as a Philosopher and Scientist that it explains most things perfectly (but that there are still many things to explain - similar to how I view Darwinian Evolution, but with more precise mathematical logic to support it, and it explains more things with less things, and all from One fundamental thing, Space!)
But at this stage we are still purely idealistic, for we must necessarily agree with Kant, both our senses and our logical language exist in the mind. I should add here though, that even if we were simply limited to Kant's Idealism, nonetheless, the discovery of the correct language for describing reality (even if it was limited to within our mind) would be a remarkable and profound human achievement, and would in itself radically change our world view (for as we will shortly see, Postmodern Philosophy now no longer even believes that this is possible!)
But let us take the further step of Direct Material Realism, and ask;
'Does this Language of Spherical Standing Waves in Space merely exist in our mind, and Reality is something separate that we represent with our mind, or does this Language of Spherical Standing Waves in Space actually describe what physically exists, not as a representation but as a direct description?' The logic is now overwhelming that Space does actually exist and is spherically vibrating. It now seems certain to me that I exist in this Space as a Structure of many trillions of Wave-Centers all trapped in complex interconnected 'orbits / oscillating wave functions' about one another that have evolved my enormous complexity. This is sensible and logical to me for the following reasons, to which I think we must all agree;
1. Something must exist
2. The human mind and ideas require human bodies and brains to first exist.
3. There must be some necessary connection (and MOTION) between the matter of our brain and body and other matter in the universe (for us to be able to see it, move it around.)
4. That our Representation of Reality is not direct from our senses, but is constructed by the mind (and this is limited to sensing only a tiny fraction of 'What Exists').
So for example we only see a half moon (we are deceived for it is still a whole moon) because we only sense a tiny 'visible' frequency of light (resonant coupling) compared with the many other possible frequencies that our technology uses. (Thus an Infra-red telescope would still see the whole moon).
Significantly, the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) agrees with each of these four points (which cannot be explained by Kant). Our mind definitely 'represents' the world, a red apple is not really a red apple, it is a structure of many trillions of Spherical Standing Waves the size of the universe, whose Wave-Centers have evolved into this complex structure that has electrons / Wave-Centers trapped in particular frequency 'orbits'. These bound oscillating electrons resonantly couple with electrons in my eye due to oscillating interactions of the apple's In and Out Waves with mine. This particular frequency is represented to my mind as red. Now while I cannot explain this representation (and this opens up a whole new field of inquiry into this aspect of the mind from the foundations of the WSM) I can explain the Cause of this Representation.
This is important, and I would like you to seriously consider this, for me to BE ABLE TO represent this apple, requires points 1 to 3 above - which is explained quite perfectly with the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter. Thus we see that the Metaphysic of Space and Motion agrees that our mind represents the real world of which we have limited senses. But what I stress, is that neither Space, nor (Wave) Motion are Representations, but are in fact What Exists such that we can exist and have a mind that 'represents' these Spherical Standing Wave Motions in Space. The Motion of Matter in Space is a True Representation if you like, and there are no reasons why we cannot represent some things truly, e.g. an apple falling (moving) to the ground, is correctly perceived. On the other hand, the half moon is not. By understanding the Metaphysics of Space and Motion though, and thus by understanding 'What Exists', this enables us to determine what is truly represented, and what is not. (Logic fills in the gaps due to our limited senses and our mind's at times incorrect representation of things.)
Note 1: Einstein was similar to Kant in that he founded his work on the Metaphysics of Space and Time, and he explained Causation with the use of force fields. Thus Einstein mathematically represented matter as a changing (in time) spherical field (both force and ellipsoidal shape change) with Motion and near other Matter in Space. Einstein believed in a rigid fundamental Space (the Spherical shape of matter gives Space its three dimensions) and that matter was a structure of Space. He was correct other than he used the wrong language (of spherical electromagnetic force fields) rather than Spherical Standing Waves (SSWs) in Space.
As this Treatise explains, the Wave-Center of the SSWs obviously creates the pointlike 'Particle' effect of matter, and once you understand the theory you will realize that a change in velocity of the Spherical In-Waves, as they interact with other wave structures, causes the resultant acceleration of the 'Particle'/Wave-Center. This, most profoundly, explains Newton's Fundamental Law of Inertia F=m.a and thus explains the 'Necessary Connexion' between 'What Exists' . This is the fundamental cause of the force field which misled Einstein. And as you shall see, then solves all his problems, unites Relativity with Quantum Theory (as the WSM clearly explains the particle wave duality of Q.T.)
Further, Wolff's WSM deduces both the de Broglie Wavelength of Quantum Theory and Einstein's Relativistic Mass increase, both are phenomena of relative MOTION. BOTH deduced from the ONE wave equation - absolutely remarkable to do this if this language were not true. Further, the same logic applied to Cosmology solves ALL their major problems also - absolutely remarkable.
Note 2: On Mind Independent Reality - Before humans existed, there still
existed reality. Thus in this sense, mind independent reality exists. Space
has always existed and been spherically vibrating - this is completely
reasonable and logical. For example, it is true that prior to human existence
the Earth still orbited the Sun, and for this to occur requires two things,
Space and Motion! Thus Space and Motion exist independently of our Minds
and are NOT merely representations of our Minds!
On Mind Independent from Reality - The mind must exist as a structure of Reality (the relative motions of trillions of Wave-centers, both internal and external to the body) thus the mind depends upon Reality for its existence, i.e. there can be no Mind separate / independent from Reality.
Metaphysics can be simplified into two fundamental questions that separate
various Schools of Philosophy.
1. Is it possible to construct a human logical language that corresponds to our senses? (Deduces exactly what we observe.)
2. Is it possible to construct a human logical language that directly corresponds to 'what exists' and explains the cause of our senses?
Kant answers YES to 1 and NO to 2.
Postmodernism answers NO to both (there are no absolute truths, only evolving approximations!)
The Metaphysics of Space and Motion answers YES to both. By describing Reality from the foundations Spherical Standing Waves in Space we thus define the meaning of the words used and how they are necessarily connected to the physical reality of Space. (Using Kant's concept of Synthetic a priori knowledge to construct new meaning for the word Space (it is a Wave-Medium) and Matter (it is a Spherical Standing Wave (SSW) in Space). Most significantly, we can then demonstrate that this language logically deduces exactly we what sense in this Space around us, that it necessarily/logically connects our language to the real world of the Motion of Objects (SSWs) in Space.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm - Very good summary of Kant's ideas on reason and synthetic a priori knowledge.
Eastern Philosophy: Buddhism Hinduism Taoism Confucianism
Ancient Greek Philosophy: Stoicism, Quotes, Pictures
Heraclitus: Biography, Pictures, Philosophy Quotes
Socrates: Life & Death, Biography, Pictures, Quotes
Plato: Greek Philosopher. Republic Quotes, Biography
Aristotle: Politics & Philosophy Quotes, Biography, Pictures
Marcus Aurelius: 'Meditations' Quotes, Biography, Pictures
Benedict de Spinoza: 'Ethics' Philosophy Quotes
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: Monad Philosophy Quotes
George Berkeley: Philosophy Quotes, Biography, Pictures
David Hume: Biography, Pictures, Philosophy Quotes
Immanuel Kant: Critique of Pure Reason Quotes
Friedrich Nietzsche: Biography, Pictures, Philosophy Quotes
Politics: Political Science Globalisation Democracy, Utopia
Philosophy of Education: Teaching Philosophy
Philosophy of Art: Renaissance Impressionist
Modern Art Gallery
Philosophy of Mind: Idealism to Realism
Uniting Matter & Mind
Postmodern Philosophy Postmodernism Vs. Realism
'The Gift of Truth Excels all Other Gifts.' (Buddha)
One of the top ten shops at Cafepress for the past two years (out of 3 million shops!).
A brilliant collection of portraits and quotes from 500 of the greatest minds in human history.
The Philosophy Shop has three portraits and quotes from Immanuel Kant.
Enlightenment Philosophy: Moral Law Immanuel Kant
'Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe - the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.'
Universal Moral Law and Life: Immanuel Kant
'Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law.'
Immanuel Kant: Reason, Duty of Philosophy
'It is the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations.'
|Large Posters - Small Posters - Mini Poster Prints - Framed Poster Panel Prints - 2010 Wall Calendars - Journals / Diaries - Postcards - Greeting Cards - Mousepads - Bumper Stickers - Coffee Cups, Mugs & Beer Steins - Wall / Time Clocks - Buttons / Badges - Fridge Magnets - Jewelry Box & Drink Coasters|
Ancient Greek Philosophy
Chinese Indian Metaphysics
20th Century Philosophers
Physics Prints Science Quotes
God Religion Morality Ethics
Famous Leaders President Politic
Evolution Life Nature Ecology
Metaphysical Poets & Poetry
Literature Books Authors Quotes
Women Feminism Art
Renaissance Fine Art Prints
Satire Humor Funny Jokes
Unique Custom Printed Tees - Men's Women's White T-Shirts - Men's Women's Black T-Shirts - Longsleeve T Shirts Hooded Sweatshirts - Women's Longsleeve Clothing - Tight Sexy Ladies Clothes - Men's & Women's Boxer Shorts / Boxers - Women's Intimates Erotic Thongs - Tote & Messenger Bags - Children / Infant / Kids Clothes - Kitchen Chef BBQ Cooking Aprons - Baseball Caps & Trucker Hats - Dog Coats
Truth & Reality
The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
Theory of Reality
Unity of Reality
Logic & Reality
Special & General
of Light & Matter
& Infinite Space
Truth & Reality
Truth & Reality