I THINK IT'S WELL
WORTH REMEMBERING
THAT KANT, ALTHOUGH WE THINK
OF HIM NOWADAYS PRIMARILY
AS A PHILOSOPHER WAS ALSO,
IN HIS EARLY DAYS, FASCINATED
BY COSMOLOGY, FASCINATED
WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT TIME,
FASCINATED WITH THE QUESTION
WHETHER WE COULD PRODUCE
AN OVERALL THEORETICAL
DESCRIPTION
OF THE WHOLE PROCESS BY WHICH
THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE TOOK
ON ITS PRESENT FORM.
IN FACT, HIS FIRST MAJOR
WORK, PUBLISHED IN 1755,
WAS CALLED "THE UNIVERSAL
NATURAL HISTORY AND THEORY
OF THE HEAVENS," AND IT WAS AN
ATTEMPT TO TAKE NEWTON'S THEORY
AND USE IT TO GENERATE AN
OVERALL AND COMPLETE SET
OF HYPOTHESES ABOUT HOW
MATTER DISTRIBUTED UNIFORMLY
OR RANDOMLY THROUGHOUT
THE UNIVERSE
WOULD, BY THE ACTION
OF NEWTON'S LAWS,
COME TO FORM STARS, AND PLANETS,
AND NEBULAE, AND ALL THE REST.
AND A LOT OF THE IDEAS THAT KANT
THREW OUT SPECULATIVELY IN THAT
BOOK ACTUALLY CAME TO
PLAY A PART WITHIN PHYSICS
IN LATER DECADES IN LATER
200 MORE YEARS AS QUESTIONS
WHICH HAVE BEEN
DEALT WITH AND WHICH
HAVE THROWN LIGHT ON
PROCESSES THAT ASTRONOMERS
HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH
CONCERNED WITH.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS
THAT, AFTER READING HUME,
KANT BECAME VERY EMBARASED
ABOUT THE QUESTION
HOW HE COULD JUSTIFY
THE VERY ARGUMENTS
HE WAS USING IN THAT BOOK.
I MEAN, IT SEEMED TO
HIM, FOR INSTANCE,
THAT WHEN YOU STOP
TO THINK ABOUT IT,
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
BEGINNING OF TIME
WERE QUESTIONS THAT WERE
INHERENTLY CONSTRUCTED
IN A WAY THAT WAS
CONFUSED AND CONFUSING.
FOR INSTANCE, IF I TRY TO
TELL SOMEBODY ABOUT THE FACT
THAT TIME HAD A BEGINNING,
THE NATURAL THING FOR THEM
TO RESPOND IS, AND
WHAT BEFORE THAT?
BUT, IF ONE'S TALKING ABOUT
TIME HAVING A BEGINNING,
PRESUMABLY ONE'S TRYING TO MEAN
THAT THERE WASN'T ANY BEFORE.
THAT THE QUESTION ABOUT
BEFORE DOESN'T ARISE.
AND THEN YOU GET INTO THE SAME
KIND OF CONFUSED DIFFICULTIES
THAT YOU GET INTO IF
YOU START THINKING
ABOUT THE ABSOLUTE
ZERO OF TEMPERATURE
AS BEING AS HAVING A
PARTICULAR NUMERICAL VALUE.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT
OBVIOUS AT FIRST
THAT MINUS 300 DEGREES CELSIUS
IS AN INHERENTLY CONFUSED
DESCRIPTION OF A TEMPERATURE.
AND INDEED, YOU
CAN PERFECTLY WELL
CONSTRUCT AN ALTERNATIVE
SCALE OF TEMPERATURE
BASED ON THE LOGARITHM
OF ACTUAL TEMPERATURES
SO THAT ABSOLUTE ZERO WILL
GO OFF TO MINUS INFINITY.
AND IF YOU CHOSE TO HAVE
A PARTICULAR KIND OF TIME
SCALE IN ASTRONOMY, YOU COULD
DEFINE IT LOGARITHMICALLY
SO THAT THE BEGINNING OF
TIME WAS MINUS INFINITY.
AND IN FACT, THE DISTINGUISHED
ENGLISH PHYSICAL COSMOLOGIST E.
A. MILNE IN THE YEARS JUST
BEFORE THE SECOND WORLD WAR
PUT FORWARD A VERY
COMPLEX PHYSICAL THEORY,
ACCORDING TO WHICH, IN HIS
VIEW, FOR CERTAIN THEORETICAL
PURPOSES, WE SHOULD THINK OF
TIME PRECISELY IN THAT WAY,
AS NOT HAVING A BEGINNING
FOR THE SAME REASON
THAT A LOGARITHMIC
SCALE OF TEMPERATURE
WOULDN'T HAVE A LOWER BOUND.
ALL OF THIS KANT PUT
FORWARD IN A FAMOUS ARGUMENT
IN THE "CRITIQUE OF PURE
REASON," IN WHICH HE DESCRIBES
WHAT HE CALLS PARRALOGISMS.
PARRALOGISMS,
ARGUMENTS IN WHICH WE
USE TERMS THAT ARE
INHERENTLY BOUNDED,
AND THEN GET INTO
CONFUSION BECAUSE WE
WANT TO THINK OUR WAY
BEYOND THOSE BOUNDS.
AND WHEN KANT EXPLAINS
WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS
OF OUR NATURAL
MODES OF REASONING
IN THE CRITIQUE OF PURE
REASON, THE POINT HE MAKES
IS THAT REASON,
AMONG OTHER THINGS,
HAS TO DISCOVER THE LIMITS
OF ITS OWN APPLICABILITY.
NOW, LATER, SCHOPENHAUER
SAID THAT THESE LIMITS
WERE THE LIMITS
OF REPRESENTATION.
AND LATER ON, VICHTENSTEIN
IN THE SAME SEQUENCE
SAID THAT THESE LIMITS WERE
THE LIMITS OF LANGUAGE.
THAT LANGUAGE HAS
ITS OWN INHERENT SELF
LIMITING CHARACTER IN THE
WAY IN WHICH REPRESENTATION
HAD HAD FOR SCHOPENHAUER,
IN THE WAY IN WHICH REASON
HAD FOR KANT.
BUT IN ANY CASE, IF SOMEBODY
ASKS, WHEN DID TIME BEGIN,
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT HE
UNDERSTANDS WHAT HE'S ASKING.
AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S
ASKING IS SOMETHING
WHICH MAY TURN OUT TO
MAKE NO SENSE, UNLESS HE'S
BEING VERY CAREFUL IN THE WAY
IN WHICH HE EXPLAINS AND DEFINES
WHAT HE MEANS BY
COMING, BY, SO TO SAY,
RUNNING OUT OF TIME BACKWARDS.
AND THIS ISN'T ALWAYS DONE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY
PHYSICISTS WHO TALK ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE FIRST
MILLIONTH OF A SECOND
IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE
IN A WAY WHICH LEAVES US STILL
UNSATISFIED BY THE SENSE,
AS A RESULT OF THE SENSE
THAT IT ALWAYS MAKES SENSE
TO US, AND BEFORE THAT.
WHICH IF KANT, IF WE'D TAKEN
KANT'S WARNINGS SERIOUSLY,
WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS A TRAP
THAT WE WERE PUTTING OURSELVES
IN A POSITION TO FALL INTO.
