Philosophy Discussion Forums

An opinion unencumbered by data.

The obscurity of the Big Bang sent me on my quest for to try to Understand the Creation of the Universe.

The other day I heard a new version of the Theory to the Big Bang which said the Big Bang began did not begin at a specific Point, moment, in Space Time, That the Big Bang began as an explosion of Time and of Space, which makes sense in Part.

The Explosion, the Differentiation, of Time and of Space are without a doubt being part of the Process.

The differentiation of Time and of Space allowing for existence, the Measurement of the Speed of Motion, of the momentum and location of an Entity in Space-Time, the Four-Dimensional Continuum, Time and Motion being synonymous, relative, Time being used as the Measurement of Motion, Time being use to measure the Location and Momentum of an Entity, being a measurement of Existence it's self.

-- Updated September 5th, 2015, 11:18 am to add the following --

The obscurity or the absurdity of the Big Bang; what's the difference.

Is a priori knowledge possible? Let's assume not. That means there are no preexisting categories which structure all that we know; rather, any such structures must reside in each individual datum-of-knowledge. But, if that's true, then our minds are what John Locke called a tabla rasa. We are blank slates upon which our knowledge is thus written. And, the syntax of that script is, of course the rationale, or structure which makes the aforementioned categories intelligible. There is, however valid criticism of this possibility. Consider two women, who appear so different, and yet both are considered beautiful. If beauty does inhere to the individual, then how can this be? The beauty of the first, being so different from that of the second is yet the same. It couldn't be otherwise, though. The word beauty must be fluid enough to apply to vastly dissimilar cases. If that isn't so, then language necessarily breaks down and becomes intractably problematical.

Language, of course hasn't broken down. We all know the red of a sunset, and the red of a rose are different. (We do not, after all see redness, as such. It's always an attribute of what we do see). But, the two instances of red are also the same. We incite no confusion by using the word red in both instances. Note that, if there is no "a priori knowledge", we're clearly entitled to marvel how this can be true. The viability of language, therefore seems to require preexisting categories-of-structure; in other words, a priori knowledge. But, doesn't it seem odd that such "categories" don't allow us to see colors-as-such? If we have a priori knowledge of attributes (of which color is one), then redness, as such ought to exist. It does, of course as an artifact-of-language. It doesn't, however exist as a true sensory experience.

So, what's the answer to the titular question? We've seen that language seems to necessitate a priori knowledge. Yet, that very necessity is undermined by our inability to perceive attributes, apart from that to which they inhere. (For example: we can't smell the aroma of a home cooked meal, without the meal being cooked). That-in-which-attributes-inhere cannot be known, in and of themselves. They are, essentially the rationality, or structure of what we know. (We know a rose is a rose because of how it's various attributes are arranged). But, the rose itself, apart from those attributes remains a construct. The coin is flipped yet again because of this construct; it can only be the very a priori knowledge, under dispute. So, back to the question: is a priori knowledge possible? The best answer I can give is, it's more than possible; it's necessary. At the same time however, a priori knowledge is impossible. The question remains open; probably indefinitely so.

Scott wrote:What do you think? Do you think a priori knowledge is possible or not? Why?

I think the answer depends greatly on how we define knowledge and experience.

Anyway, what do you think?

IMO, a priori knowledge is possible. An example is how Galileo established the a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

I agreed it depends greatly on how we define knowledge.

The scientific method definition for its a posteriori know-how knowledge, are merely substantiated with pragmatic theory of truth with truth value. As valid as such a posteriori knowledge could be, without proving its a priori knowledge, the a posteriori knowledge in all possibilities could be validated by false positives.

If and of if the mechanism of the objective universe is correctly understood, and thus with Gettier problems meticulously and correctly eradicated with epistemic theories of truth (like how Galileo illustrated with his a priori proposition on the revolving path of Venus), the a priori knowledge on the actualities of empirical observations, evaluated with coherence theory of truth, and verified with justified correspondence theory of truth, could arrive at well-justified true belief for the a priori positional knowledge that are free of Gettier problem.

Many assumptions in the posits of modern science have to be straightened out for the mechanism of the objective universe to be correctly understood.

Paradigmer wrote:

a priori knowledge is possible. An example is how Galileo established the a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

But a new paradigm is not a priori, it's a new theory under which the evidence is viewed from a new perspective. Galileo had a brain wave but his brain wave was not necessarily a priori knowledge and, for all we can know, some other paradigm might supervene.

The episteme is a social a priori of a kind that preceeds any possible original discovery and any possible truth to the world. It is social because it is spoken together before it can be spoken individually. It preceeds any possible truth about the world because it is a priori therefore must constitute the very ground upon which truth and falsity can be debated. Foucault does not deny that theories may be more or less true and more or less original within an episteme.

Between epistemes however, he proposes a discontinuity so deep and unbridgableas to be beyond even conflict and disagreement.

Belinda wrote:Paradigmer wrote:

a priori knowledge is possible. An example is how Galileo established the a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth.

But a new paradigm is not a priori, it's a new theory under which the evidence is viewed from a new perspective. Galileo had a brain wave but his brain wave was not necessarily a priori knowledge and, for all we can know, some other paradigm might supervene.

The Galilean a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth is regardless of its support for the heliocentric paradigm. As a matter of fact, this a priori knowledge was adopted in the Tychonic system, which is a geocentric model. Of course some other paradigm supervenes, and we now know that the a priori proposition of heliocentrism that all celestial objects revolve around the Sun is a physical paradox. Nonetheless, the predication of this Galilean's a priori knowledge, prevails.

The Galilean a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth

The Galilean being the first to say that Venus revolves does not make it Prior Knowledge.

Prior Knowledge is an original product of the mind, is a creation, has no prior existence, original, first knowledge.

-- Updated April 14th, 2017, 10:52 am to add the following --

Heretofore being unknown.

A so-called idiot savant, who can instantly and accurately perform extremely complex mathematical calculations, would that be considered a priori knowledge?

Wayne92587 wrote:

The Galilean a priori knowledge on Venus revolves around the Sun and not the Earth

The Galilean being the first to say that Venus revolves does not make it Prior Knowledge.

Prior Knowledge is an original product of the mind, is a creation, has no prior existence, original, first knowledge.

-- Updated April 14th, 2017, 10:52 am to add the following --

Heretofore being unknown.

Let's look, more closely at the Galilean Revolution. Although Newton can rightly be said to have raised the Earth up to the heavens, and to have brought the heavens down to the Earth, it was Galileo who first understood their common language. Unlike just the generation before, contemporaries Galileo and Kepler were willing to let fact have the last word over aesthetics. Nicholas Copernicus saw the cosmos governed solely by an a-priori aesthetically pleasing scheme; whereas the very next generation allowed humble facts to interpret that language.

The genius of Galileo lay in his commonsense refutations of Aristotle. Once intellectuals freed themselves of their a-priori aesthetically pleasing schema, they no longer felt they had to fudge-the-facts to fit those schema. Beauty could then be built from the ground up. The measurement and documentation of facts determine precisely which specific aesthetic, nature had chosen. Of course, the facts aren't quite so simple. The intuition which chooses the aesthetic which, in turn nature has chosen for itself can't itself be considered a fact. So, not quite so simple.

Nevertheless, fact had never before been given such a voice. And this, in turn raised our humble experiences up, in parity with the presumed beauty with which God had written the cosmos. In other words, man and not God became the locus of all things. And this is the true genius of Galileo. Whatever else truth may be, it must first sprang from the soil, before reaching for the heavens. And reach, it did. The phases of Venus shattered a venerable, a priori knowledge; precisely those very schema already mentioned.

Copernicus believed the orbits of the known planets were the five Platonic Solids, ensconced one within another. This was one possible aesthetic, Ptolemy's deferent's and epicycles were another. But, neither of them had been built from the ground up. And Newtonian physics, the worldview which sprang upward disproved them both. So, here's a couple of questions: why did intellectuals once hold mundane experience in so low regard; and, what changed?

Astronomical knowledge isn't (and can't be) a priori knowledge.

I would say that Prior Knowledge is the knowledge of a Reality, not an Illusion, that has issued forth from thought experiments, Rationalization, without being an Irrational concept, with out being an Illusion made manifest a false Reality, without being just so much gibberish, reality which then can be experienced.

-- Updated April 15th, 2017, 9:09 am to add the following --

I would say that Prior Knowledge is the knowledge of a Reality, not an Illusion, that has issued forth from thought experiments, Rationalization, without being an Irrational concept, with out being an Illusion made manifest a false Reality, without being just so much gibberish, reality which then can be experienced.

-- Updated April 15th, 2017, 9:24 am to add the following --

And Newtonian physics, the worldview which sprang upward disproved them both. So, here's a couple of questions: why did intellectuals once hold mundane experience in so low regard; and, what changed?

The mundane secrets of the Material World of Reality were to easily understood by Mortal, the common man.

Being all knowing, wise, Mankind's Frontier was born of desire to discover what was on the Mind of God.

When man became wise, all knowing, Man's desire was to step out of the mundane Material Reality of the Earth, to rise up to the heavens, the Spiritual
World of Reality, in order to discover the manifold secrets of the Cosmos.

Mankind’s desire to separate his World of Reality from the mundane Reality of Animal Kingdom, to become more than a mere Animal, all knowing, “God Like.”

Platos stepchild: So, here's a couple of questions: why did intellectuals once hold mundane experience in so low regard; and, what changed?

Don't know that anything changed. Aristotle, for example, thought that empirical knowledge was essential. It's just that the knowledge of science is additive and progressive.

Consul wrote:Astronomical knowledge isn't (and can't be) a priori knowledge.

Why not?

Platos stepchild wrote:

Consul wrote:Astronomical knowledge isn't (and can't be) a priori knowledge.

Why not?

The reason why astronomy is an a posteriori, i.e. empirical, science is that astronomical facts/truths are synthetic and metaphysically/ontologically contingent/non-necessary, and such truths/facts can be discovered and known only on the basis of perception/observation rather than on the basis of (rational) intuition.