Kant can't cant Kant's cant of "can't"s

Kant can't cant Kant's cant of "can't"s.

Suppose that Kant was almost right about the necessity of something (he says space-time) for the notion of experience to be possible. But he was right only in the least of ways.

It is not that space and time are necessary precursors for the possibility of experience.

In fact many of the relations we learn seem to defy space and time locality in terms of their apparent causal effects. I honestly don't know what he or Hume would have said in reaction to the magic that is Phillips Hue lights.

Regardless, lets say he was right in that least of ways that...there is a something that is a necessary precursor for experience. That something carries a signal that can be deciphered by virtue of the way that signal works in the interactions that define it.

We have some minimally interacting features (e.g., sight, hearing, taste, scent, touch, heat etc.) that contribute relatively little noise locally, but can transmit that signal then quite globally, but in a systematic way.

But we don't need to postulate what it is that that signal exists in merely that it exists and that we have some kind of reliable measure for the signal regardless of its precise positioning in all of the possible aspects of existence. And just like scientific research programmes that really never make any progress, eventually they are abandoned, so could be said for senses. And of course, you have many more senses that your senses depend on to properly work(e.g., your brain senses which parts of it needs more blood, your endocrine system senses when you have low or high blood sugar, caffeine interrupts sensors that will be activated by adenosine diphosphate which is the product of respiration(in the chemical sense) as long as the ATP goes through that secondary loop for digesting the sugar aerobically) that you simply could not possibly be aware of at all the times it needs to be under control

So does that mean that one of the dimensions of our existence is caffeineness? Or perhaps better put would be caffeine bioavailability? But is that as fundamental a dimension and space and time? I think in a sense it could be, even if we can discribe some aspects of what it does at a lower level in other dimensions, it has non local effects that seem intuitively much more meaningful than just the low level effects. Or it's not, whatever. It doesn't matter.

The key is not which dimensions are real or aren't. The key is that there are dimensions to be measured that we can expect reliable measures about. That actually is a precursor to the belief in the feasibility of measurement.

So in other words Kant had the right idea, he was not being hypocritical, however he was being overly confident and disciplinarily technical and making claims about what is and what isn't possible without any evidence to back up his claim. And indeed, if you were to be able to understand his words, you are evidence against his claim, since information just spread in a way that is not easily described in terms of space and time, but description might be possible in terms of the idea dimension or something like a generalized semantic dimension of meaning as meaning.

In any case, in order for Kant to be able to say anything he has to deny some of the basic pieces of constraint on his own hypotheses, unless he wants to believe some bizarrely specific functions that describe relations among space and time.

I know there is a way to save Kant's argument. I just am trying to demonstrate that it could be worthwhile to engage less strict assumptions that at the very least include the possibility of Kant being right but allow for greater flexibility of measure.

On continuous truth, continuous lies, continuous confusion

You do realize.

That if you believe that there is a truth that is ideal in any sense.

And you believe that there is a one to one to one correspondence with your thoughts and mind and brain(no information is lost in exchanging those terms)

Presumable a part of the meaning of ideal is the notion of better than. Else it would be the real. Such is the presumption of the existence of a known ordering on truth conditions of being ideally anything, including truth.

Then there is a better state of a brain than another. Namely if there is a true one to one correspondence, there is an ideal state. And I can state that if you additionally believe there is a definite state at any one time; that is, that there are coherent discrete ways of chunking time and that there is a coherent way of discretely chunking space, that you think there is a truely unique correspondence. Because if you cannot detect something incorrectly at every moment, then that means you are correct. If it were allowed to vary at the level below the smallest that could be detectable, then eventually there would be a better theory, meaning that what you thought was the best theory wasn't actually. Another way to interpret that is that for your measurement system, if there is going to be any variation, you aren't going to be able to detect it by going smaller because then you detect it, so if there is such a set, then let be the equivalence set for a moment called the ideal equivalent set for your measurement right now. Except we were assuming that there is a unique truth, and so I would say there is but only conditional on your measurement system including evaluation functions.

If you believe that something has causal force in the world, and you believe the world is in any sense static, then at least for whatever that static moment is. There is something to detect. I want to argue that static is a misnomer. If relativity means anything it means that. One way one can interpret squared numbers is as an additional dimension. That is the premise of polynomial curve fitting.

That is you fit a separate mean parameter theta1 and 2 for x and x^2 not to mention theta0 which accounts essentially for your measure's mean. Why don't you consider the sum of each of their random variables then when fitting a linear model. If you actually think they are independent dimensions then they should be treated as independent dimensions, and each should have its own error term.

And there is some relation that might exist between every point in the rationals such that it is the square rooted relation of two points that define the space time derivative known as the speed of light which since we know it exactly in terms of our local units right, so we can just define spatial distances in terms of that integral over space known as a light year or 1 absolute amount of distance that light can travel in a year. If light can transmit information, then that means that if there is a definite minimal size for time, then there is a definite size for the minimal space estimate, since we've established a definite size for minimal information transfer via definite time and speed of anything(since definite inside definite can fit snugly eventually, that is going be the 'ideal signal' for your measurement device, but what would the square of a binary variable be other than itself. Since there is a maximal truth to be approached either you are on it in one interpretation or you are not. Any squares are still going to be identical to the original if true equals one. Therefor measurement of the ideal will create an equivalence class if truth is obtained, meaning that there is no more measurable variance ever. At all.

That's a bit boring innit?

Why don't we calculate variance in a time delayed manner? Or at least had an additional term for the squared term and the first term, and the measure itself. one way you could interpret any causal effect whether that is on something you are able to measure or something that affects any of your known measures indirectly. Which could be thought of as a ratio of sorts. Well my suggestion is just that ratio changes over time.

There seems no reason why it shouldn't other than that we live in a Euclidian world and so we only ever need to worry about intersecting lines that never vary in scale over time.

Fine polynomial, but why don't we try a Fourier basis if nothing else. Or a wave.

I don't understand how you could have a transverse wave without being continuous yourself. It would only at best be a step function since if only one wqs continuous you could transform it into a longitudinal wave (i think) or at least a countable set of waves if neither was continuous then you'd get steps. To get transverse though, to really model water if its randomly distributed wouldn't it at the very least have some Gaussian noise in addition to the obvious signal that it carries, even if it is composed of a squared term as well.

Oh and you can't record Euclidean distance on a cross product of two rationals, since then at 1,1 the distance from origin would need to be square root of two.

And note that if a particular truth exists, it is