On the disparity between intrinsically discrete thought and intrinsically continuous sensory experience and the resulting misrepresentation of physical space
I haven’t read the previous post yet but no, Andy does have an “idea” of differentiated physical space from the moment he has an “idea” of the one and the many. In this case this might refer simply to the concept of real numbers. What he does not, and cannot have an idea of, is of time; that time which is understood as the process of becoming, the flow of time if you will. The only idea he would have of time (assuming he is some sort of automata-friend) is that of “spacialized time”, which is the only account of time and measurement that physics cares about. Your paragraph is entirely correct when applied to time, but not to space. An intrinsic experience that is discrete is already called space, that is what space is, it is an “always already”. Andy is always already. That is why machines act so well (in space) compared to humans, but they will never act in any conceivable way (in time) compared to humans. This is the time of Augustine, which exists only in the present (both, past and future exist only in the present). Note that the space of time that Augustine refers to bears no extension, “ciò che non ha spazio non si misura”, it exists in an absolute present without expand: “da ciò che non è ancora, attraverso ciò che non ha spazio, in ciò che non esiste più.” (Confessioni, 11, XXI).
This was made very clear by Bergson, and there has never been an answer to that, or to be more precise, there cannot be an answer to that within the dogmatic subjectivism of a Kantian epistemology. Which is what underpins our entire commitment to “modern science”. The categories of understanding can be called into question from the moment they are a product of the environment and its material evolution, not the pre-conditions for its own existence. See for example Bergson’s generative intuition (HB “Key Writings”, Bloomsbury), or James’s idea of an active mind which I mentioned earlier. Not to mention ANW of course. The creative nature of time is entirely missed by science. It treats time as if it did not exist, and obviously, Nature does not exist either, other than as a physical aggregate. We have been stuck in this damaging misconception for three hundred years.
That quotation from Sri Aurobindo is extraordinary, it could have been said by Bergson in one his most brilliant intuitions. It puts all Kant antinomies to rest.
I haven’t read the previous post yet but no, Andy does have an “idea” of differentiated physical space from the moment he has an “idea” of the one and the many. In this case this might refer simply to the concept of real numbers. What he does not, and cannot have an idea of, is of time; that time which is understood as the process of becoming, the flow of time if you will. The only idea he would have of time (assuming he is some sort of automata-friend) is that of “spacialized time”, which is the only account of time and measurement that physics cares about. Your paragraph is entirely correct when applied to time, but not to space. An intrinsic experience that is discrete is already called space, that is what space is, it is an “always already”. Andy is always already. That is why machines act so well (in space) compared to humans, but they will never act in any conceivable way (in time) compared to humans. This is the time of Augustine, which exists only in the present (both, past and future exist only in the present). Note that the space of time that Augustine refers to bears no extension, “ciò che non ha spazio non si misura”, it exists in an absolute present without expand: “da ciò che non è ancora, attraverso ciò che non ha spazio, in ciò che non esiste più.” (Confessioni, 11, XXI).
This was made very clear by Bergson, and there has never been an answer to that, or to be more precise, there cannot be an answer to that within the dogmatic subjectivism of a Kantian epistemology. Which is what underpins our entire commitment to “modern science”. The categories of understanding can be called into question from the moment they are a product of the environment and its material evolution, not the pre-conditions for its own existence. See for example Bergson’s generative intuition (HB “Key Writings”, Bloomsbury), or James’s idea of an active mind which I mentioned earlier. Not to mention ANW of course. The creative nature of time is entirely missed by science. It treats time as if it did not exist, and obviously, Nature does not exist either, other than as a physical aggregate. We have been stuck in this damaging misconception for three hundred years.
That quotation from Sri Aurobindo is extraordinary, it could have been said by Bergson in one his most brilliant intuitions. It puts all Kant antinomies to rest.