Kant Can't Count (10x fast)
Literally-- he argued you couldn't were you to have to arrive at such an abstract ability completely independent of experience and perception within the concept of pure reason. We are beings built on our experiential understanding a priori that ironically continues to feed its own personal relative epistemology from the foundation and lens that is thus repeatedly
shaped in concert with the development of accompanying ontology. This concept is further borne out by the noumenon (the actual reality of an object, as opposed to our perception) because it is impossible to experience. The question is why-- I believe there is no such thing. The practical definition of this concept is the infinite relative phenomena of the object across its infinite temporal existence and non-existence. Enter entropy from stage right. The full reality requires a complete understanding of its entropic evolution [entropy is itself a (the? I don't know.) universal constant (per my unfinished post on entropy)].
So, who cares, what does any of this mean to us? Changed my mind, I'm leaving this one open to comment. What does it mean to you?
I will just scramble it with the Categorical Imperative to my own twisted ends- I ought never to act except in such a way that I could will that my maxim should become a relativistic, tenable moral law.
shaped in concert with the development of accompanying ontology. This concept is further borne out by the noumenon (the actual reality of an object, as opposed to our perception) because it is impossible to experience. The question is why-- I believe there is no such thing. The practical definition of this concept is the infinite relative phenomena of the object across its infinite temporal existence and non-existence. Enter entropy from stage right. The full reality requires a complete understanding of its entropic evolution [entropy is itself a (the? I don't know.) universal constant (per my unfinished post on entropy)].So, who cares, what does any of this mean to us? Changed my mind, I'm leaving this one open to comment. What does it mean to you?
I will just scramble it with the Categorical Imperative to my own twisted ends- I ought never to act except in such a way that I could will that my maxim should become a relativistic, tenable moral law.
2 Comments:
Reading "A Critique of Pure Reason?"
Surely not... at least, not at the moment!
I hardly call this "accounting homework."
My comment would be:you claim... the only constant? Then how are we here? And in one piece? Were it a constant, we would no longer be whole ourself, entropy would have taken over and we would be nothing but chaos.
Entropy is... a process, I suggest... the "only" constant, (as you would, perhaps put it.)
However, if I might make a recommendation.. you may enjoy the following article: (It disagrees with me as well..lol) http://hjem.get2net.dk/niels_viggo_hansen/work/phd/4-2lt.htm
Does my homework even exist? Whether it does or not, it will make life a little more uncomfortable in 2 days when I start my MBA if I haven't done it.
I didn't claim it was the only constant; I said it was A constant, and then said "the? I don't know". Ah, you also missed my other assertion from that previous post as well as the inextricable relationship that my pithy blog title sums up: entropy is life. We are nothing but chaos (I prefer energy to that word); albeit, one that is delayed for a while by our devolving ordered system. I don't think that this perspective is in contradiction to Whitehead's assertion that life has a "teleological tendency towards the realization of order". Furthermore, we inherently contribute to the overall energy of the system. Is entropy a process (per Whitehead) or is it an endemic characteristic? I don't know, haven't thought that through. I will say there is an inherent flaw in the derived belief that the "teleological order-producing aspect of strong processuality implies the "dysteleological" tendency of generalized diffusion from smaller to larger sections". This is the presumption of mankind's ability to discern a noumenon, that is a simple problem of granularity, and not an actual unknowable. This statement is referring to the global nature of disorder. There is a dysteleological tendency in any process reasoning as you widen the scope, but it is not a result of a greater universal disorder.
Mr. Hansen's PhD thesis would place it in the same bucket that time is handled in. Go to chapter 4, about 55% of the way down, he notes "there seems to be no such way of deriving anything to do with macroscopic properties such as heat and temperature, or at least that this would require that we first manage to construct such properties from our "first principle" of process metaphysics -- that is, in fact, that we manage to perform a somewhat detailed construction of the range of properties of observable nature." That is what my first post on entropy was doing.
Post a Comment
<< Home