system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Does non-Euclidean geometry render Kant's claim that space and time are a priori intuitions irrelevant?

What the title says. 

Per my understanding, Kant claims that space and time are a priori intuitions, but the discovery/ potential of non-euclidean geometries means that to find which one is 'right', we must test them against each other, making our intuitions of space and time empirical. 

Please correct me if I am wrong.
gpt
The typical argument is that post-Kantian developments on this point require us to distinguish intuitive, mathematical, and physical spaces in a way that Kant didn't--or rather, to regard them as independent in a way that Kant didn't. For Kant, these three concepts are interconnected in an important way: our intuition of space serves as the ground for our judgments of geometry, and this relation between intuited space and geometric space explains why objects of intuition are describable by geometry, so that it serves as the ground for physical space.

The subsequent developments in mathematics led to the idea that we can speak of a number of diverse geometries. The implication here is not that geometric space is an empirical rather than a priori intuition, but rather that it's conceptual rather than intuited.

This mathematical development raised a new question about what geometry to use in the theories of physics. As you say, on the typical view this choice is responsive to experimental considerations, but that doesn't quite mean physical space is an empirical intuition. If the theories of physics are admitted to be conceptual constructions, then they are freed to use whichever geometry best suits the requirements of their theorization, and it could be that physics settles upon a construction of space distinct from our intuitive experience of space.