On Van Lambalgen et al.'s formalization of Kant

The paper by Van Lambalgen and Pinosio 'The logic and topology of Kant's temporal continuum' (which is just one of a series of papers by Van Lambalgen on Kant)  opens with a nice discussion and careful justification of the general idea of the formalization of philosophical systems. The coined expression 'virtuous circle'  is particularly fortunate. In this post, which will be continuously updated, we will critically explore the above paper and make some connections with our own work on Aristotle's theory of the continuum.

The primitives are called 'events', self-affectations of the mind, which must be brought into order by fixed rules.  The authors work over finite sets of events which is justified by textual evidence from the CPR (we will return to this later).  Their task is to formalize relations between events - and to thus develop a point-free theory of the linear temporal continuum.

We find that that their notation could be improved and the axioms better justified. Instead of the confusingly asymmetric (all for the sake of the substitution principle, I suppose, or for the transitivity axiom) $a{R}_{-}b$ and $c{R}_{+}d$  let us write $a{}_{\bullet }\le b$ and $d{\le }_{\bullet }c$. Instead of $a\oplus b$ we write $a\leftarrow b$ and insead of $a\ominus b$ we write $a\to b$.

The basic idea is that : $x{}_{\bullet }\le y$ does not need to imply that $x{\le }_{\bullet }y$ or vice-versa.

Kant's concept of causality implies that in order for a part $x$ of $a$ to influence $b$ we must have $x{}_{\bullet }\le b$.  Thus the following axiom is expected

$$a\ominus b{}_{\bullet }\le b$$

But let us look at axiom 4 for event structures (in our notation):

$$cOb\mathrm{\&}a{\le }_{\bullet }c\mathrm{\&}b{}_{\bullet }\le a\Rightarrow aOb$$

Our task is to make sense of this by offering a more satisfactory account of the primitive relations. Let us consider the set of connected (hence simply connected) subsets of the real line $\mathbb{R}$ and the interpretations:

$$a{}_{\bullet }\le b\equiv \mathrm{\forall }x\in a.\mathrm{\exists }y\in b.x\le y$$

$$a{\le }_{\bullet }b\equiv \mathrm{\forall }x\in b.\mathrm{\exists }x\in a.x\le y$$

But this does not work for  $a{}_{\bullet }\le b\Rightarrow a{\le }_{\bullet }b$. But let us take our events to be bounded open intervals $(a,b)$ and consider

$$(a,b){}_{\bullet }\le (c,d)\equiv b<d$$

$$(a,b){\le }_{\bullet }(c,d)\equiv a<c$$

$$(a_1,a_2)O(b_1,b_2)\equiv a_2>b_1\mathrm{\&}{a}_1<b_2$$

Then if we consider $(0,1)$ and $(0,2)$ we have that $(0,1){}_{\bullet }\le (0,2)$ but not $(0,1){\le }_{\bullet }(0,2)$. The inequalities must be strict for allowing  $(a,b){}_{\bullet }\le (a,b)$ is absurd, for then we could not associate any clear or definite Kantian philosophical concept with the relation.

Now let us look at axiom 4:

$$(c_1,c_2)O(b_1,b_2)\mathrm{\&}(a_1,a_2){\le }_{\bullet }(c_1,c_2)\mathrm{\&}(b_1,b_2){}_{\bullet }\le (a_1,a_2)\Rightarrow (a_1,a_2)O(b_1,b_2)$$ which becomes

$$c_2>b_1\mathrm{\&}{c}_1<b_2\mathrm{\&}{a}_1<c_1\mathrm{\&}{b}_2<a_2\Rightarrow a_2>b_1\mathrm{\&}{a}_1<b_2$$

But this follows immediately, using in addition the fact that $b_2>b_1$. The condition $c_2>b_1$ appears not to be needed.

We could try defining $(a_1,a_2)\to (b_1,b_2):=(a_1,b_2)$ when $a_1<b_2$ and $(a_1,a_2)\leftarrow (b_1,b_2):=(b_1,a_2)$ when $b_1<a_2$.

This models should be introduced right at the start of the paper to motivate the the definition of event structure. Notice that the set of events is here identified with the (infinite) subset $E\subset \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}=\{(x,y):x<y\}$ but we could take only a finite subset.

We must check the axioms for event-structures for our model and also give a geometrical interpretation of the relations and operations above in terms of the identification of $E$ as a subset of the plane above.