My question is that we have according to Kant and area where reason can't go. That is uncondioned realities. And yet we also have knowledge of things that are not empirical. And we know there is more to a priori knowledge more than definitions. So my question to Dr Kelly Ross in California is how to decide how far reason can go.
I wrote :Kant held that Reason applied to unconditioned realities would produce contradictions..
K.R.: In theoretical Reason, that is.
KR: " With unconditioned realities, we cannot determine between freedom and determinism. However, practical Reason does determine, for freedom.
You tell the difference between unconditioned and conditioned realities where the series of applications of the categories (particularly causality and substance) has termination points or does not. Thus, freedom is the beginning of an unconditioned causal series, and God (or, to an extent, the soul) is an unconditioned substance. There is a similar idea in Buddhism, where all reality is conditioned but for certain "unconditioned dharmas," such as Nirvana. This would fit in nicely with Kant.
These principles result in a nice meeting between physics and metaphysics. Phenomenal space is all conditioned, but the whole of space is unconditioned, which is why physics cannot decide whether the universe if finite or infinite. This problem is currently dishonestly evaded in discussions of physics.
Best wishes,
Kelley Ross"
After note: Kant really requires a lot of work. And I admit to have not spent enough time on him.
At any rate we here a classic example of Kelly Ross writing. It is jam packed with sub-layers, It is like each word requires a few semesters of study.
I wrote :Kant held that Reason applied to unconditioned realities would produce contradictions..
K.R.: In theoretical Reason, that is.
I wrote: "But that it is valid in the realm of a priori synthetic knowledge.The question is if these are really all that different? How do you tell the difference between unconditioned realities and just plain regular a priori things?"
KR: " With unconditioned realities, we cannot determine between freedom and determinism. However, practical Reason does determine, for freedom.
You tell the difference between unconditioned and conditioned realities where the series of applications of the categories (particularly causality and substance) has termination points or does not. Thus, freedom is the beginning of an unconditioned causal series, and God (or, to an extent, the soul) is an unconditioned substance. There is a similar idea in Buddhism, where all reality is conditioned but for certain "unconditioned dharmas," such as Nirvana. This would fit in nicely with Kant.
These principles result in a nice meeting between physics and metaphysics. Phenomenal space is all conditioned, but the whole of space is unconditioned, which is why physics cannot decide whether the universe if finite or infinite. This problem is currently dishonestly evaded in discussions of physics.
Best wishes,
Kelley Ross"
After note: Kant really requires a lot of work. And I admit to have not spent enough time on him.
At any rate we here a classic example of Kelly Ross writing. It is jam packed with sub-layers, It is like each word requires a few semesters of study.
