BothAndBlog Forum

Kant's antinomies: transcendental cosmology
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/788513

Cosmic silence before the Big Bang
"We are often told that the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic creation — that it tells us how the Universe was created out of nothing and went on to evolve into all the galaxies, stars, and planets. The problem with that characterization is that only the second part of it is true. Yes, what we call the Big Bang is a theory of cosmic evolution. But the Inflationary Universe standard model that guides cosmology says nothing about cosmic origins. The birth of space, time, matter, and energy is simply not there. . . . .

It is an issue called Kant’s First Antinomy. Two centuries before Lemaître, the philosopher Immanuel Kant asked how the Universe could be explained through a deterministic cause when it must be the very thing that embraces all causes. Since the Universe encompasses all things and, therefore, all causes, what can exist outside of it to set the Universe in motion? . . . .

But Lemaître already knew that his formulation did not really solve the First Antinomy, because it did not explain where the primeval atom came from."
https://bigthink.com/13-8/big-bang-does ... -creation/

Before the Big Bang
“For decades, the Big Bang has been taught in high school physics classes as the leading theory for the way the universe began. But despite the overwhelming evidence supporting it, several questions linger for physicists. How could something come from nothing? And why do the laws of physics not hold up at the bang? . . .
Now, some scientists say that the Big Bang was not the beginning, and that there was a universe before ours. . . .
This problem has left scientists, including the likes of Einstein, perplexed for years.
“In my opinion, this is the single most embarrassing problem of physics,” said Max Tegmark,”
https://scienceline.org/2008/07/physics-heger-bigbang/

Although physicists typically define their subject, Nature/Universe, as the evolving physical/material system that began 14 billion years ago, some have been embarrassed by the metaphorical similarity of the semi-official/semi-consensus Big Bang Theory to ancient Origin Allegories. Consequently, to avoid confusion with religious myths --- and to TV sitcoms --- a few Cosmologists, along with some Philosophers, have invested significant think-time to forming plausible conjectures about the Transcendent-Time-or-Place-before-Space-Time which seems to have emerged from out beyond our where & when Reality.

That kind of “non-sense” is what physicist Sabine Hossenfelder sarcastically calls “Existential Physics”. Moreover, due to lack of material evidence, she dismisses such notions as “non-science”. Which apparently implies that probing beyond the beginning of physical evolution is "mere philosophy".

Nevertheless, such “existential” questions have persisted since ancient times, and still pop-up frequently on The Philosophy Forum. Alas, Idealist philosopher, Immanuel Kant argued that we can never know Reality directly, but only our mental models of the world. Which raises the question : are our Existential Physics models any more true or relevant than ancient Ontological God-myths?

Despite our epistemological limitations, philosophical thinkers are still intrigued by un-verifiable open-questions and challenged by perplexing paradoxes. So Kant labeled our “ attempts to cognize the nature of transcendent reality by means of pure reason” as "Antinomies" (Contradictions or Paradoxes). Although “Transcendent reasoning” is a no-no for empirical scientists, such puzzles seem to be unavoidable & necessary for the work of model-making Cosmologists & theoretical Philosophers seeking reverse-reductive or holistic solutions to the Big Why questions.

PS__In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary & questions on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology. What are your thoughts on existential Transcendence? Is it irrational to imagine the unknowable "What-If" beyond the partly known "What-Is"? Should we "fall-down & prostrate"? or just "shut-up & calculate"? Or is it reasonable for speculative Philosophers & holistic Cosmologists daring to venture into the "Great Beyond" where pragmatic Scientists "fear to tread"?

_In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon


KANT'S ANTINOMIES :
*1. "The antinomies, from the Critique of Pure Reason, are contradictions which Immanuel Kant argued follow necessarily from our attempts to cognize the nature of transcendent reality by means of pure reason".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies
Note -- Transcendent Reality : is this an oxymoron ; antinomy ; contradiction ; paradox?
Oxymorons may seem illogical at first, but in context they usually make sense
*2. Kant calls transcendental realism the “common prejudice” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/
*3. Meaning of Infinite Transcendent Reality:
“This being is transcendent, meaning that it is beyond the normal range of our experience of our material universe. At the same time this being is a reality in the human life process.”
*4. “Pure Reason seeks answers about topics that are beyond the five senses (also called metaphysical questions, e.g. about God, Creation, Soul, etc.). Practical Reason is content with answers about topics within the realm of the fives senses, e.g. questions about Economics, Psychology, Science. “
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... cal-reason

In the next post, I'll provide some ruminative commentary on Kant's Antinomies, as they relate to Transcendental Cosmology — Gnomon


Outline : https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ggod ... 2h-k1.html

# 1st Antinomy
Thesis : The world is limited with regard to (a) time and (b) space.
Antithesis : The world is unlimited with regard to (a) time and (b) space.

Comment --- Big Bang theory provided circumstantial reasons for assuming that space-time is existentially bound in the past, by infinity-eternity. But the future seems bounded only by Entropy. Einstein hypothesized that the physical shape of the universe is finite but unbounded. which describes a static sphere. However, the expanding universe seems to be unconstrained in volume and surface area. So, the physical boundaries are somewhat flexible.

In response to the ex nihilo implications of instant emergence, the formerly singular universe (Nature) has been hypothetically multiplied into an infinite-eternal Multiverse, presumably unlimited in space & time, and inexhaustible in Creation & Causation. How plausible is that unlimited higher-dimension “super-nature” into which our space-time-bounded balloon universe is expanding? Do such unverifiable cutting-edge concepts qualify as non-scriptural theological god-posits, or as non-empirical atheist god-surrogates?

# 2nd Antinomy
Thesis : Every composite substance in the world is made up of simples.
Antithesis : No composite substance in the world is made up of simples.

Comment --- Modern Science has been pursuing the holy grail of Atomism for centuries. But each presumed (and hailed) fundamental particle has been superseded by another hypothetical “Simple”. Currently Quarks are no longer pictured as atomic, but composite. So the material world may also be flexible in space & time. What then, what does this unfulfilled quest tell us about rock-solid Materialism? Do we have to go out of this world to find the ultimate transcendent Simple : the essential element from which reality is built?

“In contemporary mereology, a simple is any thing that has no proper parts. Sometimes the term "atom" is used, although in recent years the term "simple" has become the standard.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_(philosophy)

Traditional Atomism asserts that all physical objects consist of different arrangements of eternal atoms and the infinite void in which they form different combinations and shapes. There is no room in this theory for the concept of a God, and essentially it is a type of Materialism or Physicalism. https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_atomism.html


# 3rd Antinomy
Thesis : There is freedom in the world.
Antithesis : There is no freedom in the world.

Comment --- Free-Will arguments typically hinge on the notion of an unbroken chain of Causation & Determinism. But Quantum Theory introduced random statistical states-of-being that seem to be a-causal and indeterminate. But are statistical states real, or just mathematical abstractions? If Math is the logical foundation of Science, how can it allow ontological freedom : gaps in the chain of causal determination?

Psychologist Karl Jung postulated an Acausal Connecting Principle ("Synchronicity") related to Awareness, Meaning & Time. While that anything-goes notion may make sense for Metaphysics, is antithetical to Classical Physics. Can it be reconciled with the queerness of Quantum Physics?

A-Causal : isolated event or thing existing without a known provenance.

“Acausal” means not having a cause. In classical physics all events are believed to have a cause; none are acausal. In quantum physics, some interpretations of quantum theory allow for events to occur without a cause, that is, they are acausal.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/

Ontological Freedom :
To claim that human beings possess freedom is one way to resolve this conflict, but the existence of freedom raises problems of its own—in addition to concern over the source of this freedom and its manner of interacting with the causal chains in which it supposedly interferes, the existence of freedom seems to undermine our ability to explain any events according to causal rules, insofar as those rules lose their universality and applicability to a large range of events in the world. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/view ... ool_theses

# 4th Antinomy
Thesis : A necessary being is either part of or cause of the world.
Antithesis : A necessary being is not (a) part of the world or (b) cause of the world.

Comment --- Everything in space-time seems to be contingent on prior causes. Except of course, the first step in the physical chain of causation : the Singularity that banged. Everything after that first event in the 14 billion year series of transitions, from nothing to something, has been contingent. Was the mathematical Singularity somehow exempt from the laws of physics? Was the Singularity super-natural? Is there a higher law of Necessity that transcends contingency? If Logical Necessity preceded the beginning of Time, is it a Being, or a Simple, or a rational Principle?

Summary :
Posters on The Philosophy Forum often run afoul of supposed limiting Laws of Ontology & Epistemology. The transgression occurs when we try to extend our metaphysical Minds beyond the physical limits of space-time-matter-energy. Is that excursion even permissible in modern empirical Philosophy? Can we "cognize transcendent reality by means of pure reason"? Or is Philosophy limited, like Science, to physical means of knowing, and to the mental margins of space-time? If we somehow quantum-tunnel through the invisible walls around Reality, are we in danger of losing our sanity? Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of a mathematical point-of-convergence (zero point singularity) between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity?

Considering that we have only one instance of Reality for evidence, is the expansive notion of an Infinite Regression of Bangs (serial Singularities ; repetitive Black Hole leaks ; cyclic-creation-events) a plausible scientific solution to the enigma of existence? What can Multiverse or Many Worlds theories tell us that we don't already know? Wouldn't Ockham's Razor prefer a more parsimonious postulation? Can we condense the various pre-bang scenarios into a singular Eternal Potential? Would that explain more or less than more-of-the-same-stuff hypotheses?

Is scientific Cosmology trespassing in the domain of Theology, when it tries to explain the implicit existence of a mathematical point-of-convergence (zero point singularity) between Space-Time and Infinity-Eternity? — Gnomon
Not sure what this means in a math context. The north pole of the Riemann sphere is, in a sense, "the" point at infinity in the complex plane. So in the chordal metric one gets closer and closer to "infinity". — jgill

I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes : before & after the Singularity. In Multiverse theory the chain of universes would continue in both directions : infinite past & infinite future. The implicit point is that the beginning point of our universe would not be Singular, but Incidental.

The image below may be closer to what I was trying to express in inadequate words : that The Multiverse (portrayed as a singular thing) implicitly minimizes the significance of our own universe's birthday (Copernican Principle). Matter, Energy, and Natural Laws eternally evolving new worlds, but without end or purpose.

The intended question was whether imagining the source of our existence as an all-encompassing Multiverse (Eternal/Infinite existence with unlimited Potential) could be considered as a god-like Creative Power (including the innate potential for Life & Mind). For scientific purposes of course, that limitless Power is assumed to be Accidental, instead of Intentional : perhaps containing little minds, but mindless as a whole system : a blind groping demi-deity.

Singular : exceptional ; uncommon
Incidental : accompanying but not a major part of something.
Multiverse :
The multiverse is a hypothetical group of multiple universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. ___Wikipedia


A schematic representation of a generic Big Bang singularity , corresponding to a (0) = 0. The universe can be continued before the Big Bang without problems.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-s ... 2_51966428

The antinomies themselves merely demonstrate, on the one hand, reason’s proclivity to transcendental illusion, and on the other, the very same reason’s exposition of the error contained in it. — Mww

So, was Kant saying that his own Transcendental Idealism is an illusion and an error? Or was he merely warning about how easy it is for reason to accept "appearances" as reality, and also to imagine "ideals" as more real than the testimony of the senses? Apparently, Science can play it safe by avoiding Metaphysics altogether. but Philosophy's job description is to explore the un-mapped territory beyond the known safe zone.


Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics :
Very generally, Kant’s claim is that it is a peculiar feature of reason that it unavoidably takes its own subjective interests and principles to hold “objectively.” And it is this propensity, this “transcendental illusion,” according to Kant, that paves the way for metaphysics. Reason plays this role by generating principles and interests that incite us to defy the limitations of knowledge already detailed in the Transcendental Analytic. . . . .
Kant, however, complicates things somewhat by also stating repeatedly that the illusion that grounds metaphysics (roughly, that the unconditioned is already given) is unavoidable. Moreover, Kant sometimes suggests that such illusion is somehow necessary for our epistemological projects.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/


Kant’s Transcendental Idealism :
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant argues that space and time are merely formal features of how we perceive objects, not things in themselves that exist independently of us, or properties or relations among them. Objects in space and time are said to be “appearances”, and he argues that we know nothing of substance about the things in themselves of which they are appearances. Kant calls this doctrine (or set of doctrines) “transcendental idealism”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-

Sorry to quibble, but quarks are sub-atomic, not atomic, and considered to be the smallest particle.

Then on the non-quibble, is Kant's work really a good example to use for your topic?
If your critique is on cosmology, why not use Ptolemy and Thales? What's so special about Kant? His transcendental idealism? This is the wrong application of Kant's work. — L'éléphant

I was using quibbleable "atomic" in the original Greek sense of irreducible.

This thread was inspired by the Big Think article, which mentioned "Kant's First Antinomy". The rest is just me babbling about Transcendence --- about which, according to Kant, I know nothing. But, per Kant, as a philosophical thinker, I can't help but transgress beyond the transcendental boundaries in the ship of Pure Reason. Besides, Cosmologists have already made in-roads into the Terra Incognita. So, even amateurs like me can experience little adventures into unverifiable Possibilities.

Reason doesn’t concern itself with the reality of appearances, nor imagining ideals. Reason is a logical function, by which the principles we understand in support of science, are applied to that which science doesn’t support, or hasn’t yet supported. Sometimes it works, re: chasing light beams and standing in free-falling elevators, sometimes it doesn’t, re: an unconditioned cause. — Mww

I agree. Such speculations are metaphysical, not physical. Obviously, reasoning from experience with conditional causes to an unconditioned First Cause cannot provide empirical evidence for the actual existence of such a transcendental entity. But perhaps such reasoning beyond experience can point to a plausible explanation for existence : Ontology. Theoretical Philosophers can "boldly go" where empirical science cannot. And that's what theoretical Cosmologists have done with their conjectures of a time-before-Time. Is that a waste of time, or merely a way to put our brief time on Earth into a larger perspective?

The quoted science articles at the beginning of this thread indicate that some Big Thinkers think that our world must have emerged from something instead of nothing : "Cosmic silence before the Big Bang" and "Before the Big Bang". Yet, philosopher of science Bjorn Ekeberg, in The Delusions of Cosmology, admitted that even the Big Bang was a metaphysical hypothesis. So, he seems to be implying that Cosmology is not Science, but Philosophy. As such, it uses logical extensions from known information to make its conjectures seem plausible. Therefore, if you disagree with the logic, you can deny the premises. Do you think Big Bang and Multiverse have been validated? Do you think Cosmology is an appropriate topic on a Philosophy Forum?


You can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics :
From the outset, the 'Big Bang' was always a hypothetical premise - if t=0, then... it allowed for calculation of scenarios. When this in turn could yield models that conformed to observations, it was seen to validate the original premise. . . . . My point is you can't build a cosmological model without metaphysics; to think cosmology is pure science is delusional. . . . The Enlightenment ideal is still vitally important to science but the belief that the universe is made of math and that the role of physicists is to reveal its 'secret code' is a pervasive strand of thought in modern science that is indistinguishable from faith. ___Bjorn Ekeberg
https://iai.tv/articles/the-delusions-o ... -auid-2145

Scholar T R V Murti notes in his 1955 book, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, that there are considerable similarities between this list and Kant's antinomies of reason, particularly the first four. (The book contains many comparisions of Buddhist philosophy and Kant, for which it is nowadays mainly criticized.) The Buddhist attitude towards such imponderables is expressed by the 'simile of the poisoned arrow', in which a wanderer is shot by a poisoned arrow, but rather than seeking to have it removed, wants to know who fired it, what it was made of, etc, and consequently dies as a result. The Buddha's teaching is to 'remove the arrow', i.e. overcome the cankers and cravings, rather than think about unanswerable questions such as these. — Wayfarer

Yes, the Buddha seemed to be a practical empiricist instead of a theoretical metaphysicist, focused on the concrete here & now instead of imponderable possibilities. Even so, he postulated a few metaphysical notions, such as Nirvana & Non-Self, in order to explain why we should do what he prescribed. Perhaps his avoidance of metaphysics made his philosophy more palatable to pragmatic modern Western minds, even though his own people quickly turned his austere science of the mind into ritualistic religion of the senses.

I apologize for the muddled message. It was not intended as a formal mathematical definition, but more like a poetic metaphor of mirrored universes — Gnomon
Thanks for the reply. Neat image. — jgill

Yes, the cosmic sausage-link image does neatly encapsulate the "Big Bounce" theory of cyclic universes pinched-off from previous 'verses. But such information leakage models require some exotic physics. And the accelerated expansion models seem to turn the bounce into a "Big Rip". Those one-way models assume a single line of linear time. Yet other Cosmological models envision multiple miniverses budding-off from a singular central Multiverse. However the point of the original post is that all of these math-supported speculations, while internally logical, are not scientific theories, but philosophical conjectures that attempt to deny the unique creation-event implications of the Big Bang theory..

Meanwhile, other thinkers limit their speculations to the knowable world. And a popular cosmological model (Tipler 1995) begins and ends with a Singularity, sometimes labeled "Alpha & Omega Point" theories. Ironically, both Singularities are defined as "God". Others label the future Omega Point as a Technological Singularity (Vikoulov 2020). How can these confusing Ontologies be simplified into a plausible Epistemology?

Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe
by Charles Seife, author of ZERO : Biography of a dangerous idea
https://www.amazon.com/Alpha-Omega-Sear ... 0142004464

ONE & DONE : EXPANSION + ACCELERATION
960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
BIG RIP
TysbkBdZLcjX6nBQexMBCN.png
BIG BUDS from Multiverse
Bouncing-Universe-2880x1620-Lede.jpg
RHIZOME (rootlike) Multiverse
Multiverse2009-640x491.jpg

The issue then becomes what "limit" might mean, in regard to space-time. And it's not going to be the same now as it was for Kant.
This by way of showing that there is nothing in the antinomies themselves. — Banno

I suppose the "antinomies" are merely polar opposite positions that we could take in philosophical arguments. As you implied, Kant was not concerned with the antinomies per se, but with the conflict that arises from such black-vs-white opinions. That's also why Aristotle advised us to aim at the Golden Mean, instead of "either of two abstract things that are as different from each other as possible".

I'm just guessing that what Kant meant by "limitation" on space-time was implicit in his use of "Transcendence" to describe our philosophical speculations beyond the boundaries of space-time into infinity-eternity --- both of which are merely abstract ideas. And that's the topic of this thread : Is it acceptable for philosophers & cosmologists to make conjectures about anything not directly perceptible by the physical senses? If not, then they are wasting everybody's time with literal non-sense : "passing wind". In that case, this whole forum could be characterized as nothing but a collective fart.

Whereas Locke & Hume proposed a "blank slate" model of the human mind, Kant argued that "the blank slate model of the mind is insufficient to explain the beliefs about objects that we have; some components of our beliefs must be brought by the mind to experience"*1. Empiricism implies "garbage-in, garbage-out" (GIGO), with nothing contributed by the information processor. Yet, Steven Pinker studied the tabula rasa question, and concluded that the human brain is born with innate categories, into which sensory inputs are sorted.

Pinker is an advocate of the Computational Theory of Mind*2. The result of that computing & processing is not GIGO, but novel ideas that add a personal perspective (qualia ; beliefs) to the objective facts. To filter out the garbage requires Judgement & Wisdom. Which is the whole point of Philosophy, is it not? Empiricism collects raw facts, while Rationalism selects & cooks those facts*3, sometimes combining antinomies of sweet & sour.



*1. Empiricism vs Transcendence :
Since the human mind is strictly limited to the senses for its input, Berkeley argued, it has no independent means by which to verify the accuracy of the match between sensations and the properties that objects possess in themselves. . . . Hence, while Kant is sympathetic with many parts of empiricism, ultimately it cannot be a satisfactory account of our experience of the world.
___Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

*2. Computation of Mind :
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. . . . The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... ry_of_mind


*3. The main difference between Rationalism And Empiricism is that rationalism is the knowledge that is derived from reason and logic while on the other hand empiricism is the knowledge that is derived from experience and experimentation. Rationalism is about intuition while empiricism is about visual concepts.
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/rationa ... mpiricism/