The odd position of time and space in the Bell's inequality does seem to have a lot to do with Kant. [That space and time are just ways of measuring things. But they exist like all dinge an sich (things in themselves)-they exist but reason has no access to understand them.].] [If the electron is here then it has no value for momentum. Not zero or anything else.Not just that there is conspiracy to keep us from knowing what it is.] That is,-- you first have to get out of the idea that there is action at a distance. All Bell's inequality means is that there are two possibilities, (1) things have no values in space and time until they interact. Or (2) action at a distance. But we know action at a distance is not true because of Relativity. So we are left with things having no classical values until measured.
SEE Gellmann There is nothing non-local about Einstein Podolsky Rosen
The idea that things have no value of space or time is not so strange. In Lemaitre's article in Nature 1931 where he discusses the big bang that he predicted he says that space and time had to have begun after the first quantum had already split into many others. So there is obvious some sub-layer underneath space and time. That is clear anyway from the Aronov-Bohm effect where you see that space has already a mathematical structure.
From other directions, Kant is being revived. Robert Hanna went through a painstaking rigorous detailed critique of 20th century analytic philosophy showing it is ready for the trash bin. [Even G.E. Moore.] But Neo Kantian-ism was discarded for other good reasons.
So by default one is left with Leonard Nelson's approach to Kant or Kelley Ross's synthesis of Nelson.
Note that Nelson has been ignored almost universally.
On the other hand I can imagine that some might want to revive the other Neo Kant approaches of Marburg, Heidelberg or Husserl. Frankly, I would be happy with anything that would get back to Kant. [Robert Hanna seems to have a soft spot in his heart for Husserl. Still he says openly that he was refuted. There simply is no one left on the playing field except Kant and Leonard Nelson.]
Still that leaves the question about Hegel. To me it seems Hegel is fine if you understand him with McTaggart.
[I like McTaggart a lot, but I ought to mention that he provided a convenient target for those who wanted to attack Hegel and assumed McTaggart=Hegel. Also, they assume that the Metaphysical State was Hegel's, and you can see that Hobhouse thinks that way. Even though his critique on the Metaphysical State is not actually directly against Hegel. But seeing things in the former USSR without the force of the state I got a good taste of a good argument for the state. [Before the Soviet State, no one was going to have an American kind of Democracy in Russia and even today the whole idea seems absurd. You can not have an American kind of democracy without Americans! And that takes many years to develop that kind of mentality. Maybe it is DNA? or whatever. ]
[I wanted to mention that there is a lot of confusion about Bell. Bell's inequality does not
disprove causality. Rather it can prove one of two things. Either no causality or that things have no values in space and time until measured. Since we know there is causality because of GPS which depends on Relativity. So what we know now is things have no value in space and time until measured. And that is not all that different from how Lemaitre explained the beginning of the universe where space and time did not exist until after there were already a bunch of quantum particles around. I saw this in the blog the reference frame [I think] later it became clear in my own study of QM, GPS is a nice proof of Relativity since it would not work unless both Special and General Relativity are true.
]
SEE Gellmann There is nothing non-local about Einstein Podolsky Rosen
The idea that things have no value of space or time is not so strange. In Lemaitre's article in Nature 1931 where he discusses the big bang that he predicted he says that space and time had to have begun after the first quantum had already split into many others. So there is obvious some sub-layer underneath space and time. That is clear anyway from the Aronov-Bohm effect where you see that space has already a mathematical structure.
From other directions, Kant is being revived. Robert Hanna went through a painstaking rigorous detailed critique of 20th century analytic philosophy showing it is ready for the trash bin. [Even G.E. Moore.] But Neo Kantian-ism was discarded for other good reasons.
So by default one is left with Leonard Nelson's approach to Kant or Kelley Ross's synthesis of Nelson.
Note that Nelson has been ignored almost universally.
On the other hand I can imagine that some might want to revive the other Neo Kant approaches of Marburg, Heidelberg or Husserl. Frankly, I would be happy with anything that would get back to Kant. [Robert Hanna seems to have a soft spot in his heart for Husserl. Still he says openly that he was refuted. There simply is no one left on the playing field except Kant and Leonard Nelson.]
Still that leaves the question about Hegel. To me it seems Hegel is fine if you understand him with McTaggart.
[I like McTaggart a lot, but I ought to mention that he provided a convenient target for those who wanted to attack Hegel and assumed McTaggart=Hegel. Also, they assume that the Metaphysical State was Hegel's, and you can see that Hobhouse thinks that way. Even though his critique on the Metaphysical State is not actually directly against Hegel. But seeing things in the former USSR without the force of the state I got a good taste of a good argument for the state. [Before the Soviet State, no one was going to have an American kind of Democracy in Russia and even today the whole idea seems absurd. You can not have an American kind of democracy without Americans! And that takes many years to develop that kind of mentality. Maybe it is DNA? or whatever. ]
[I wanted to mention that there is a lot of confusion about Bell. Bell's inequality does not
disprove causality. Rather it can prove one of two things. Either no causality or that things have no values in space and time until measured. Since we know there is causality because of GPS which depends on Relativity. So what we know now is things have no value in space and time until measured. And that is not all that different from how Lemaitre explained the beginning of the universe where space and time did not exist until after there were already a bunch of quantum particles around. I saw this in the blog the reference frame [I think] later it became clear in my own study of QM, GPS is a nice proof of Relativity since it would not work unless both Special and General Relativity are true.
]
