Prove it.
Entropy does not contradict a priori time and space in any way.
Space is not nothing. Scientist call it spacetime. The question if nothing can do something, like exist, is illogical. 
not exactly sure what you mean by a priori time, for clearification, do you mean time before big bang? Or time being as something that is Just there, be it innate?
I refer you to Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
God, I really do hate you, Warrior Monk. You are sophmoric, at best.
You misues the concept of “a priori” to the point that I just want to throw the god damn books you’ve claimed to have read at you.
I suggest you read any modern quantum physics theory book and stay the hell out of the science forums you vacant child. Kant’s theories are invalid at best, and only held up during their time due to the persecution of the atheistic philosophies. The Categorical Imperative is Categorically Flawed, and you sir, are behind the times.
I doubt you even understand what entropy “means”. Not just what you think it means, what you can visualize, what they taught you in your high school physical science class, but what it implies about the distribution of energy and mass in the universe. Time, is related to mass. Remember that.
Perhaps you can find your own answer for a change. Hey, it’s not like you appear to be contributing much more to discussions other than telling people they are wrong and giving links to books as your support. If you knew what was in those books, why don’t you enlighten us. Otherwise, you’re not doing anything but masturbating your own ego.
I don’t like your style at all. Read the rant forum.
I really don’t feel like reading Kant, I really dislike him, so I will go off what I remember from the one and only time I allowed myself such torture
Wow, time is precieved by the human, and thus is subjective, (but that means nothing), Kant came upon false conclusions based on this, because of the time in which he lived…You are espousing these false conclusions in spite of the time in which you live!!!
Why am I not surprised? People like you are filled with hate.
I’m sorry but Kant’s claim is that space is the a priori form of our intuition. If you can’t accept that I’m sorry.
Werner Heisenberg was deeply influenced by Kant. Borrow a clue.
“In the most general sense it is impossible to describe intuitively what happens between two consecutive observations. It is of course tempting to say that the electron must have been somewhere during the time between the two observations and that therefore it must have described some kind of orbit or path, even if it should be impossible to establish this path. This would be a reasonable argument in classical physics. But in quantum theory it would be a case of a misuse of language which … cannot be justified.” – Werner Heisenberg
“The concept ‘happening’ [Geschehen] must be restricted to observation.” – Werner Heisenberg
Please stay on topic. I’m not talking about Kantian Ethics. We’re talking about space. The topic is space.
I’m still waiting to hear how entropy copntradicts a priori space.
Okay, now that we havn’t gotten to the bottom of what A priori time actually is, I wll answer the question none the less.
according to a priori time, time would have to be something that was purely human, something that was not a result of physical properties, something in of itself(if you disagree with these statements tell me)
But as we can see with entropy, time is not something created by humans, but rather something that is a result of nature, time IS A RESULT of physical properties, it is a result of entropy, time is not in of itself, as it is a result of entropy.
Prove it. Kant and Heisenberg both say it is impossible to observe a system without disturbing it. Namely projecting space and time and number and extracting a photon. Even Nietzsche agrees with this.
“…without a constant falsification of the world by means of numbers, man could not live…” – Friedrich Nietzsche
I can say that I crap chocolate, doesn’t make it true. You prove it.
Better, I’ll prove you wrong. We observe the sun. When’s the last time the sun gave a chocolate crap about you? Even Nietzsche agrees with this.
But perhaps you’re not familiar with the workings of modern detectors in particle accelerators or electron beam accelerator facilities. It’s rather interesting, but they DO observe a system without disturbing it, by making the disturbance part of the system to be observed.
I would like to state that I was not attempting to change the subject, son. I was showing that just because Kant said X doesn’t make it true because it’s Kant. Kant is wrong about most things, in my opinion. He’s interesting, but wrong. Sorry to crush your dreams. For instance…the Categorical Imperative. Get it now? I don’t think you do, but oh well.
You rely so heavily on the statements and claims of others, yet you have NO, and I mean, this, ABSOLUTELY NO concept of how they relate! Why, then, do you feel so compelled to post?
Now as for what you said Kant said (because there isn’t an original thought in your head, apparently), space is the form of our intuition that is knowable without actual experience. Ya, so what is your point by this? That has no relevance to this topic. So we humans, by virtue of being three dimensional, comprehend space. Get to the point, if you have one. I don’t think you do. I think you just like being contrary and rude.
Nice name dropping with Heisenberg. Grats! You overheard a real scientist speaking about the uncertainty principle!
As for Heisenberg being influenced deeply by Kant…so? I’m influenced deeply by Jesus, doesn’t mean anything I write is biblical in nature and undertone (I’m agnostic). To be honest, I was deeply influenced by Kant in that when I read him I was deeply influenced to prove his ass wrong. More important, I would like to see where Heisenberg even claimed to have read any Kant.
Your claim is just another one of your appeals to authority. Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?
By the way, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which you quoted somewhat below, essentially states that time is discrete and relative. Hello? “Borrow a clue?” Can you understand how this TRASHES the idea of time being at all stable?
Nah, kid. There is no innate time. String theory. Read up on it. There’s parallel universes out there that do not even follow our laws of physics. And these are very REAL, and mathematically sound.
I’m sorry if you think we’re falsifying our world by quantifying it, but thankfully, you’re insignificant, and provide little to no deductive evidence for your claims other than liberally placed quotes.
That post above was mine btw.
Would like to add something…
How entropy does contradict WM’s so called “a priori” space.
Reason.
Time is a descrete function as given by Heisenberg.
We are born with the knowledge of space and time, as given by Kant.
Space is going from order to disorder, toward uniformity without organization.
Space, then, must have been, at one point, extremely organized. This, we call, the beginning. When you organize space, you also organize energy, and pseudo-matter. With this organization, time speeds up. Millennia happen in the blink of an eye. As space goes towards more disorder, time slows, until it approaches zero time.
If you plot this type of growth of time/time space density on a graph, you’ll see that time had no beginning…and it will have no end. BUT! It has a limit! Zero!
That function? The most primal entropic function…
F(N) = 1/N
Graph it! It’s asymptotic at x = 0 and y = 0. In other words…time has no beginning, and no end, but it has a LIMIT to where it can go. To state that time and space expand without limit, is false. They have limits, they just can never reach those limits, which makes it appear irrelevant in our feeble minds. However, it DOES have impact on the other dimensions that you don’t even know anything about.
Again, this is the simplified version, so don’t bother jumping down my throat at the nit picky innaccuracies.
SOOO, when our universe was created by colliding parallel universes, there was a great deal of organization, and all three space objects were locked into this three space…but they are not constrained by it. Entropy shows that we have the ability to know more than three space and one time dimension, and therefore, cannot state that we know space at metaphysical birth. Because we are comprised of energy which transcends three space, but perceive in matter of three space.
So Kant was wrong. Space is learned, not known. Ask any child psychologist who has tested developmental spacial relations. If you take a child of the age of 5-6 and show them two containers of equal volume capacity but different shapes, pour water in one, then pour it in the other to show them they are of the same volume, they will STILL state that one contains can hold more than the other (generally the taller one).
Man, this stuff is harder to explain than I thought.
Space and time are a priori; Get over it!
P.S.
Backed in a corner again, I see.
I’m pretty sure rafajafar sufficiently answered your inane attacks, and it’s interesting to see that we both agree that Kant’s observations have no application to this topic. And it also interesting that when someone refutes Kant, thus refuting you, you can say nothing but "Space and time are a priori; Get over it! "
Kant was ignorant because of the time in which he lived, you are ignorant in spite of the time in which you live!
If a principle is to be a principle at all it must be timeless. A priori principles like space and time are necessary and universal. It is impossible to have perception or being without space and time.
“In the discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory it has been emphasised that we use the classical concepts in describing our experimental equipment and more generally in describing that part of the world which does not belong to the object of the experiment. The use of these concepts, including space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, ‘a priori’.” – Werner Heisenberg
“When we make an experiment we have to assume a causal chain of events that leads from the atomic event through the apparatus finally to the eye of the observer; if this causal chain was not assumed, nothing could be known about the atomic event.” – Werner Heisenberg
“Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is among those philosophical works which, as long as there is philosophy on this earth at all, daily become inexhaustible anew. It is one of those works that have already pronounced judgment over every future attempt to “overcome” them by only passing them by.” – Martin Heidegger (What is a thing, p. 61, 1935-36).
Once again, you are coming upon false conclusions based on what seem to be correct observations.
For all practical purposes that is true for THIS universe, but that in no way proves a priori time
I think it is better to talk about ‘existence’ (or, ‘that which exists’), rather than ‘the universe’, in this argument. After all, we don’t know if the universe we are a part of is the only universe in existence or if there are others. Maybe there exists an infinite number of universes. Maybe our universe is just a tiny particle making up another giant sized universe, and so on. This is all just speculation of course.
There is some scientific evidence to suggest our universe began with a big bang incident - shot out begining its expansion and is still expanding today. This does not help a philosophical argument though.
Anyway, I think the real issue here is whether ‘existence’ is finite or infinite. If existence is finite then there must be a point in which it comes to an end - ie. a boundary.
So what could potentially be on the other side of existence? Only nothing or nothingness (ie. ‘that which doesn’t exist’), of course. However, can nothingness actually exist?
In order for ‘nothing’ to be on the other side of existence we must conclude that nothing is ‘located’ on the other side of existence. That is to say that ‘nothingness’ has a ‘location.’ The problem with this is that as soon as you start talking about nothing as having a location you are beginning to assign it attributes, and clearly when you begin to assign nothing attributes it ceases to be nothing by nature and becomes ‘something’. Anything with an attribute or quality can’t be nothing, but rather must be ‘something’.
Consider this statement:
[b]NOTHING EXISTS.[/b]
Can you see how illogical it is. For a start, to say nothing ‘exists’ is again assigning nothingness attributes (here the attribute of existence). Remember ‘nothing’ can’t possess any attributes.
There is another problem with the nature of the above statement: To say nothing exists is to say that I don’t exist, you don’t exist, my dog doesn’t exist, the world doesn’t eixst, the universe doesn’t exist! Can we really accept that? So in a sense, if you claim nothing exists on the other side of the universe (or existence) you are actually saying the universe doesn’t exist. And if the universe (or existence) doesn’t exist, how can you argue that it is finite and nothing exists on the other side of it?
I conclude therefore by arguing that if nothingness can’t exist then ‘existence’ must be infinite.
Your entire argument led to the line “Therefore, if nothing doesn’t exist, then existence must be infinite.”
I see what you’re trying to say, I think. So long as I’m there to judge, then I’m judging something…and nothing can’t be something.
However, this is not the proper way to state this.
To say, “If something is, nothing isn’t,” isn’t valid. What’s in the box? Nothing. How much is the puppy? Nothing. What are you thinking about? Nothing. What’s in a vacuum? Nothing.
It’s true because nothingness is the absense of somethingness. This is possible.
HOWEVER, if you say, “If nothing isn’t, something is,” is much more valid. Because if there is nothing, then there doesnt neccesarily have to be something. But if there is something, then there may be nothing.
I agree. Nothing exists is a fallacy. But to state that nothing doesn’t exist is not.
By saying that existence is infinite is also a fallacy for this very reason. It works on the premise that nothing doesn’t exist. But it very well may.
Do I think existence is finite? Yes. Does it matter within spacetime? No. It’s impossible for anything in this spacetime to reach the end of spacetime. Space time only APPROACHES a limit, but it does not every achieve this limit. The derivative of it, however, very well may. So it is possible to see the end of time from outside of time, but not from inside.
We use the word nothing to mean different things. In my last post I was refering to nothingness or nothing as meaning the absolute absence of ‘somethingnes’.
This concept of ‘nothing’ is actually an illogical concept. (Illogical in the sense that it can’t actually be a reality - although we can still talk about it as an illogical concept). And I have argued my reasoning for this in my last post. You might call this concept absolute nothingness, if you like.
When I ask, “What’s in the box?” and you answer 'Nothing". You never mean absolute nothingness, for there is always something - whether it is just air or space. If when asked ‘What’s in the box’ you replied ‘Air and space’ people would look at you sideways, because they already know this - it is assumed in the context of the conversation. So it doesn’t need to be stated. So the meaning of the word ‘nothing’ here is completely different. It might be defined more fully as something like the following:
Nothing (in this context) = No other thing except for some space and air (which I don’t need to tell you explicitly, because you can guess that and it’s not relevant to the issue at hand anyway).
Hmmm, so you’d say that a vacuum has space, and because it has this property, it cannot be nothing?
Interesting.
Why couldn’t one say the containter has space and volume, and leave the vacuum out of it? Would that not be equally as valid?
What fills the space between electrons, then? Nothingness? Or unutilized somethingness? Is this a question of potential existence or actual existence?
I like where you’re going with this…