Some thoughts in attempting to read "Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension"
Rucker says that Kant said the space is largely a creation of our own minds (p. 21). What is, is only what we can imagine? Or what we can imagine is what is? (What does it even mean to talk about something that we can't know? Frankel talks about the Platonic universe, but I still don't get what he means)
What does it mean that there is something that we cannot know? How is it meaningful to talk of that which we cannot know? If we cannot know it then how would we ever know if it exists or doesn't? I suppose from a science perspective we do experiments that do not prove it does not exist. In some ways, is it like the idea that fields and particles both describe what is there, even though, such a belief is contradictory (at least given our realm of knowledge). But nevertheless, when we measure what is there it is clear it is both.
Scientific American said (August 2013) that what if what is there is just what is in relation to one another. That we can really only describe anything in its relationship to another thing
But even in imagining what else is there, aren't we limited by what we can even think of?
What does it mean that there is something that we cannot know? How is it meaningful to talk of that which we cannot know? If we cannot know it then how would we ever know if it exists or doesn't? I suppose from a science perspective we do experiments that do not prove it does not exist. In some ways, is it like the idea that fields and particles both describe what is there, even though, such a belief is contradictory (at least given our realm of knowledge). But nevertheless, when we measure what is there it is clear it is both.
Scientific American said (August 2013) that what if what is there is just what is in relation to one another. That we can really only describe anything in its relationship to another thing
But even in imagining what else is there, aren't we limited by what we can even think of?
Comments
Post a Comment