XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 01/01/2026 03:11, c186282 wrote:   
   > I spoke of re-arranging the arcade of fun-house   
   >    mirrors over and over and claiming to see some   
   >    Great Truth through the current configuration.   
   >    Kant is just one of those re-arrangers, tortures   
   >    semantics and perspectives like so many others.   
      
   The point us that metaphysics does not and never can reveal the Great   
   Truth, in the terms in which the classical Realist wants it revealed,   
   any more than can science.   
      
   That was Hume's crucial point. The logic of induction or inference is   
   unprovable.   
      
   Kant thought around it and came up with a possible metaphysic that coped   
   with that defect. (Which by definition, also could not be proved to be   
   true).   
      
   But, it works *better*.   
      
   Metaphysics is the study of making (necessary) assumptions about the   
   nature of the world and humanity, and seeing where those assumptions lead.   
      
   In a sense Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was the prescience of the   
   Problem Of Consciousness, and his remedy was Transcendental Idealism, a   
   possible construction that made the equations balance, so to speak.   
      
   Now,  centuries later, we probably need to look at it again.   
      
   At that time the major metaphysical shift was to remove God from direct   
   intervention in the world and create the metaphysics of Causality, and   
   Natural Law.   
      
   That allowed the pursuit of science, so well that it convinced many   
   people that *the assumptions must be true*. The world really *was*   
   'separate things' connected by 'natural laws'  and 'Cause and Effect'.   
      
   And our pursuit of these 'separate things' and the 'natural laws'   
   governing them led to the absurdity of QM etc.   
      
   The world apparently is just a big single quantum field, which only   
   appears to resemble classical reality when we attempt to observe it. And   
   so precisely what Kant said we did. Split it up into things and events   
   all dancing in a space time theatre interceded by transforms of the   
   inherent connectivity, that appear as 'causality'   
      
   The problem is, what are we, doing all this interpretation and observation?   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...   
   ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned   
      
   Richard Feynman   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)