My Thesis:
1. The absolute unconditional noumenon [thing-in-itself] is a reified illusion which one can only THINK of and used as a useful illusion regulatively [re God, morality & science] and not claimed to exists as constitutively real.
2. The discoveries of QM via a human conditional framework and system does not refute Kant's principle above which refer to the unconditional.
Here is a Discussion confirming the above:
My discussion with ChatGpt on the above.seeds wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2024 11:25 pmTo which I try to clarify with the argument that because Kant had absolutely no knowledge of the strangeness of reality that would be revealed via the discovery of quantum physics more than a century after his death,...ChatGpt wrote:"He [Kant] does not claim that noumena do not exist; rather, he emphasizes that if they do, they cannot be objects of human knowledge."
...more specifically, because he knew nothing of the "real existence" of the noumenal-like status of the ghostly objects (Heisenberg) that occupy what the physicists call "non-local" reality,...
...he therefore was in no position to make an informed judgement on whether or not humans could at least confidently infer that such noumenal-like objects* do indeed exist.
ChatGpt Responded:VA to ChatGpt wrote:My comments to the above is:
It does not matter that Kant did not know of modern QM discovered 200 years after his death.
Kant's principle is: whatever is discovered by Science is always conditioned by a human-based framework and system [Copernican Revolution].
Therefore whatever science will discover in the future, will never be able to confirmed the existence of any speculation that is non-human-based, i.e. an absolutely mind-independent entity such as God.
To Kant, the idea of God is merely a thought only, if reified is an illusion and never be conflated with what is discoverable by science which is conditional the human conditions.
Therefore the above confirm my thesis, i.e.:ChatGpt wrote:Your comments effectively address the interlocutor’s point, but they can be strengthened with further clarification of Kant’s principles and how they apply to modern scientific discoveries, such as quantum mechanics (QM). Here’s a structured response to your interlocutor’s counterargument:
Response to the Interlocutor:
Kant’s Framework on Knowledge and the Noumenon:
Kant’s philosophy establishes that all human knowledge is mediated by the conditions of human cognition—our sensory faculties and the categories of the understanding.
The noumenon (thing-in-itself) is a boundary concept, not an object that can be known or inferred through empirical means, including the discoveries of science. For Kant, any claim about the noumenon as real or existing in a constitutive sense would violate his principle that “concepts without intuition are empty.”
Kant’s Copernican Revolution and the Human Framework:
Kant’s Copernican Revolution asserts that knowledge is not about discovering a mind-independent reality “out there.” Instead, the objects of knowledge conform to the human cognitive apparatus.
Modern science, including QM, operates within this same framework. The discoveries of QM—such as non-locality and the probabilistic nature of particles—are described in terms that are inherently conditioned by human concepts and mathematical models. These are part of the phenomenal realm (appearances), not the noumenal realm.
The Relevance of Quantum Mechanics to Kant’s Philosophy:
While QM reveals profound insights about the nature of reality, these insights pertain to phenomena as they appear to us, interpreted through the mathematical and conceptual framework of physics.
QM does not provide direct access to the noumenon or a mind-independent reality. Even "ghostly objects" like wavefunctions or non-local phenomena are described within a human-constructed scientific framework, governed by human-intelligible laws and theories.
Therefore, QM discoveries cannot be equated with the noumenon in Kant’s sense. They remain phenomena—albeit phenomena that challenge classical intuitions.
Kant on God as a Regulative Idea:
The idea of God, for Kant, is a thought-only concept, a regulative ideal used in practical reason (ethics) but devoid of constitutive reality. It is not an object discoverable or confirmable by science, which deals exclusively with empirical phenomena.
Reifying God or the noumenon as a scientifically knowable entity misunderstands both Kant’s philosophy and the limits of science.
Addressing the Counterargument:
Your interlocutor suggests that QM’s revelations might allow humans to “confidently infer” the existence of noumenal-like objects. However:
Such inferences would still be based on phenomena and scientific models that conform to human cognitive conditions, as per Kant’s framework.
Inference about the noumenon would still be speculative and outside the bounds of possible human knowledge, as Kant defined it.
Kant’s principles remain valid regardless of QM’s discoveries because the epistemic structure of human knowledge remains unchanged. Science, no matter how advanced, cannot breach the phenomenal-noumenal distinction.
Key Takeaway for the Interlocutor:
Kant’s philosophy is not invalidated by modern physics.
Instead, it emphasizes that scientific discoveries, no matter how profound, are always confined to the domain of phenomena—realities as they appear to us within the framework of human cognition.
The noumenon, including the idea of God, is not an object of knowledge or discovery but a boundary concept that serves specific practical and regulative purposes.
To treat the noumenon as something that could be confirmed through scientific discoveries conflates phenomena—conditioned by human cognitive structures—with an unconditioned reality that lies entirely outside the scope of human cognition. Kant explicitly cautions against such reification, as it leads to what he calls a transcendental illusion.
1. The absolute unconditional noumenon [thing-in-itself] is a reified illusion which one can only THINK of and used as a useful illusion regulatively [re God, morality & science] and not claimed to exists as constitutively real.
2. The discoveries of QM via a human conditional framework and system does not refute Kant's principle above which refer to the unconditional.
Discuss??
Views??