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.