Ontology and Logic

[protonman]

But you are not arguing on "purely logical grounds". If you were, then your posts would look something like:

[p-->q]^(~q)-->~p

or some such like.You are showing the limitations of your understanding.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Maybe we have different understanding of ontology. Basically ontology is the study of what exists. This is not a priori. We can know what exists a posteriori.


Then what do you mean by "ontology"? I agree that we can know what exists a posteriori (actually, I think that we can only know what exists in that way).


In addition, there are many refutations of QM in Buddhist literature.


There are refutations of it in scientific literature, too. That's how we come to the theory of quantized fields. And we also know that that description is not without its flaws, which leads us to consider string field theories. But the direction in which we are moving is decidedly towards the quantum, not away from it.


The fact is if you can't argue this on classical grounds then you really don't understand it.


This is baseless conjecture, and easily refuted. For instance, no one can explain electron diffraction on classical grounds, but that does not mean that it is not well understood.


The reality of the small can not negate the reality of the large.


I agree. But all your posts seem to be based on the principle that the reality of the large negates the reality of the small, or at least that the same laws that apply to the large should apply to the small. But this is not the case. The macroscopic processes emerge from the microscopic processes.


If you are not going to argue this way then then you might as well just leave the argument to those of us who can.


But you can't argue it! Newton's laws have nothing to say about the questions you are asking.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
You are showing the limitations of your understanding.

I speak English. When you use English words such as "purely" and "logical", then I can only conclude that you are using those words with their English meaning.

If you mean something else, than say so.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
I speak English. When you use English words such as "purely" and "logical", then I can only conclude that you are using those words with their English meaning.

If you mean something else, than say so. The extent of your understanding of logic is limited by your view.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
The extent of your understanding of logic is limited by your view.

Well, you're the one who claims to want to have a discussion on common ground. If you are serious about that, then you should explain what you mean by "logical", because I guarantee you that everyone else here has pretty much the same idea of it that I do.

[protonman]

Then what do you mean by "ontology"? I agree that we can know what exists a posteriori (actually, I think that we can only know what exists in that way).Ontology is the study of what exists. So a theory's ontological validity means that the theory explains reality as it exists.

Now on the topic of only knowing what exits only a posteriori this is competely wrong. Simple example. Veocity is distance divided by time.
This is baseless conjecture, and easily refuted. For instance, no one can explain electron diffraction on classical grounds, but that does not mean that it is not well understood.That is because the electron exits on the microscopic level. What I am talking about is being able to explain an object on the level it exists at.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
This is exactly what I said.

I am asking is there a casual relationship between the forces A and B each exert on one another. How many different ways are you planning on misspelling "causal"?

Your question doesn't even make sense. You agree that the speed and direction are have a causal relationship. What else is there?

[protonman]

There are refutations of it in scientific literature, too. That's how we come to the theory of quantized fields. And we also know that that description is not without its flaws, which leads us to consider string field theories. But the direction in which we are moving is decidedly towards the quantum, not away from it.The same applies to quantum field theory and string theory. In fact, the same mistakes in QM the are explained by Buddhists are the ones being made in quantum field theories and string theories. It is all wrong from the get-go. Yes it may be a model whose application can make experimental predictions but the correspondence between theory and reality is non existent.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Well, you're the one who claims to want to have a discussion on common ground. If you are serious about that, then you should explain what you mean by "logical", because I guarantee you that everyone else here has pretty much the same idea of it that I do. First I wouldn't speak for others. This is extreme arrogance. Second, all logic does not reduce to symbols like you have shown. Your understanding of logic ignores Eastern logic. In particular, Buddhist logic.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Ontology is the study of what exists. So a theory's ontological validity means that the theory explains reality as it exists.


There has to be some a priori clause sneaking around in here, because you have already stated that you discount experimental evidence. So, without using experimental evidence and using a posteriori methods, how do you determine reality "as it exists".


Now on the topic of only knowing what exits only a posteriori this is competely wrong. Simple example. Veocity is distance divided by time.


"Velocity" exists only as a concept. To clarify: I do not doubt that abstract objects (such as concepts, ideal forms, mathematical objects, etc) can be known a priori.


That is because the electron exits on the microscopic level.


The electron exists, period. There is no need to partition "reality" up into our artificial categories.


What I am talking about is being able to explain an object on the level it exists at.


Once again, classical physics provides no answers to the questions you are asking.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
How many different ways are you planning on misspelling "causal"?

Your question doesn't even make sense. You agree that the speed and direction are have a causal relationship. What else is there? Sorry about the spelling mistakes. I guess when you have nothing intelligent left to say this is what you do.

The question is simple but I will take one step back first and we can start from there. Is there a relationship between the force A applies to B and the force B applies to A?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
The same applies to quantum field theory and string theory. In fact, the same mistakes in QM the are explained by Buddhists are the ones being made in quantum field theories and string theories. It is all wrong from the get-go.


Why?


Yes it may be a model whose application can make experimental predictions but the correspondence between theory and reality is non existent.


The agreement with experiment is the correspondence with reality.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
First I wouldn't speak for others. This is extreme arrogance.


I've been a member here for over 2 years, and I have gotten to know most of the other members. Trust me on this one.


Second, all logic does not reduce to symbols like you have shown. Your understanding of logic ignores Eastern logic. In particular, Buddhist logic.


Well, my question still stands then. What is Buddhist logic?

[protonman]

There has to be some a priori clause sneaking around in here, because you have already stated that you discount experimental evidence. So, without using experimental evidence and using a posteriori methods, how do you determine reality "as it exists".I never said I discount experimental evidence.

"Velocity" exists only as a concept. To clarify: I do not doubt that abstract objects (such as concepts, ideal forms, mathematical objects, etc) can be known a priori.So velocity is a mind?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Why?Partless particles.

The agreement with experiment is the correspondence with reality. Newtonian physics.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Well, my question still stands then. What is Buddhist logic? It is a system of logic developed by Dignaga and Dharmakirti used by Buddhists to understand the meaning of the texts and investigate reality.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I never said I discount experimental evidence.


But discounting experimental evidence is what you are doing. You flat out said "QM is wrong", while acknowledging that it agrees so well with experiment. The reason you are resisting the introduction of quantum ideas into this discussion is directly related to the fact that you discount experimental evidence.


So velocity is a mind?


No, it is a concept, just like I said.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
It is a system of logic developed by Dignaga and Dharmakirti used by Buddhists to understand the meaning of the texts and investigate reality.

That doesn't do much in the way of clarification.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
protonman: It (edit: quantum theory) is all wrong from the get-go.

Tom: Why?

protonman: Partless particles.


That's no answer. Why should that be considered wrong?


Tom: The agreement with experiment is the correspondence with reality.

protonman: Newtonian physics.


This is nonsensical. It would really help if you would answer in complete sentences. What am I supposed to get from this? That you believe that Newtonian physics corresponds to reality, based on experimental evidence?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
But discounting experimental evidence is what you are doing. You flat out said "QM is wrong", while acknowledging that it agrees so well with experiment. The reason you are resisting the introduction of quantum ideas into this discussion is directly related to the fact that you discount experimental evidence.What I discounted is experimental evidence where the objects under investigation are on the micro level. That is, the exist beyond the scope of our senses. I have no disagreement with droping a ball and determining it accelerates at 9.81 m/s^2.
No, it is a concept, just like I said. [/B] A concept is a mind.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
A concept is a mind.

No, conceiving is something that the mind does, in the same way as "walking is something that the legs do".

A concept is no more identical to a mind than a stroll is identical to a pair of legs.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
What I discounted is experimental evidence where the objects under investigation are on the micro level. That is, the exist beyond the scope of our senses. I have no disagreement with droping a ball and determining it accelerates at 9.81 m/s^2.


In that case, you will have to excuse the rest of us for not drawing the same arbitrary line that you have drawn regarding which data is valid and which is not.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
That's no answer. Why should that be considered wrong?Partless particles, meaning point particles as you know them, can not exist. If they did then there would be something that existed independent of its parts.
This is nonsensical. It would really help if you would answer in complete sentences. What am I supposed to get from this? That you believe that Newtonian physics corresponds to reality, based on experimental evidence?No that according to your statements at the time when Newtonian physics made correct predictions of experiments it was a correct description of reality. If this is the case then the effects on length and time measurements due to high velocity did not exists at that time. Additionally, QM did not exist at that time.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
No, conceiving is something that the mind does, in the same way as "walking is something that the legs do".

A concept is no more identical to a mind than a stroll is identical to a pair of legs. Does a concept know something?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Does a concept know something? ]

Of course not.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
]

Of course not. So when you have the concept of velocity that concept does not know velocity?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Partless particles, meaning point particles as you know them, can not exist. If they did then there would be something that existed independent of its parts.


This makes no sense.


No that according to your statements at the time when Newtonian physics made correct predictions of experiments it was a correct description of reality.


It was as correct a description that anyone could have come up with. We can do better today.


If this is the case then the effects on length and time measurements due to high velocity did not exists at that time.


That does not follow from anything I have said.


Additionally, QM did not exist at that time.


And of course, QM did not exist at that time. QM is a theory; a concept; a product of the human genius. That is not to say, however, that the physical processes described by QM did not occur at that time.

[russ_watters]

Heh, I was wondering where this thread was going to go.... back to another philosophical, not scientific discussion.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
So when you have the concept of velocity that concept does not know velocity?

Correct. When I have the concept of velocity, I know velocity. Velocity doesn't know anything.

I would think that much is obvious.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
This makes no sense.Maybe to you.
It was as correct a description that anyone could have come up with. We can do better today.You said that a theory's agreement with experiment is its ontological correspondence. This is saying that if an theory makes correct experimental predictions it must correspond to reality as it exists. The comments that followed regarding SR and QM were meant to imply that by your view the reality described by SR and QM did not exist at the time of Newton because his theories were experimentally confirmed.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Correct. When I have the concept of velocity, I know velocity. Velocity doesn't know anything.

I would think that much is obvious. OK you need to do some thinking here. Think of a vase. There is a mind that is grasping an object which is not the vase itself but an image of the particular vase. This mind is a conceptual mind because it does not grasp the object directly but does so through an image that is like the vase but not the vase.

Velocity can not be a concept because a concept arises, abides and then is destroyed. If velocity was a concept then velocity would disappear as soon as the concept of velocity disappeared from someone's mind. That would mean that if you do not have the concept of velocity in your mind then it does not exist. In other words, the existence of velocity depends on a particular person holding it in their mind because velocity is a concept.

[protonman]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Heh, I was wondering where this thread was going to go.... back to another philosophical, not scientific discussion. Is that a problem? If so please move us to an appropriate location. Although this is an enjoyable conversation I don't want to cause any problems here.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Maybe to you.


It makes no sense because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

Premise 1: If partless particles exist, then there would be something that exists independently of its parts

Conclusion: Therefore, partless particles do not exist.

Of course, the missing premise here is:

Premise 2: Nothing exists independently of the parts of partless particles.

But since the class of "parts of partless particles" is empty, the above statement actually says nothing.


You said that a theory's agreement with experiment is its ontological correspondence. This is saying that if an theory makes correct experimental predictions it must correspond to reality as it exists.


No, what I am saying (and I think I have made this perfectly clear) is not that scientific theories are "absolutely right". Scientific theories are quite incapable of describing reality "as it exists". Indeed, the human intellect does not have access to the noumenal aspects of physical objects.

Scientific theories describe reality not "as it exists", but rather "as we know it".


The comments that followed regarding SR and QM were meant to imply that by your view the reality described by SR and QM did not exist at the time of Newton because his theories were experimentally confirmed.


And of course, I meant nothing of the kind, and I think you knew that.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Velocity can not be a concept because a concept arises, abides and then is destroyed.


Says who, the Buddha?


If velocity was a concept then velocity would disappear as soon as the concept of velocity disappeared from someone's mind. That would mean that if you do not have the concept of velocity in your mind then it does not exist. In other words, the existence of velocity depends on a particular person holding it in their mind because velocity is a concept.


I would not say that. I would say that the concept called "velocity" disappears when there are no minds to think about it.

[Tom Mattson]

I split this off from the Newton's Third Law thread, and I am sending it to Metaphysics and Epistemology.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
It makes no sense because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

Premise 1: If partless particles exist, then there would be something that exists independently of its parts

Conclusion: Therefore, partless particles do not exist.

Of course, the missing premise here is:

Premise 2: Nothing exists independently of the parts of partless particles.

But since the class of "parts of partless particles" is empty, the above statement actually says nothing.I know the class of partless particles is empty. That is my point. Physics accepts these partless particles and I am showing they can not exist.

If something existended independent of its parts it would exist independently or inherently. If this was the case it could never change, never be perceived. Essentially, it could never depend on causes and conditions.
No, what I am saying (and I think I have made this perfectly clear) is not that scientific theories are "absolutely right". Scientific theories are quite incapable of describing reality "as it exists". Indeed, the human intellect does not have access to the noumenal aspects of physical objects.No, your understanding of human intellect does not have access. If you study Buddhism you will understand that everything can be known. Every aspect of all phenomena can be perfectly known.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Says who, the Buddha?[quote]This comes from experience. Is the concept of velocity always in your mind? If not then it must arrise, abide and be destroyed.
[quote]I would not say that. I would say that the concept called "velocity" disappears when there are no minds to think about it. [/B] You need to make up your mind. Initially you said velocity is a concept. Now you are saying the 'concept called velocity.' I am going on your first statement that velocity is a concept.

It is clear that a concept is not always held in the mind. So if velocity is a concept velocity must cease to exist when it is not held in the mind.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I know the class of partless particles is empty. That is my point.


Err...that's not what I said. I said the class of parts of partless particles is empty. To make your argument valid, you have to add a premise that refers to that empty class. But that premise actually says nothing.


Physics accepts these partless particles and I am showing they can not exist.

If something existended independent of its parts it would exist independently or inherently. If this was the case it could never change, never be perceived. Essentially, it could never depend on causes and conditions.


There is no reason a structureless particle could not be perceived, nor is there any reason it could not experience change in some way (such as changing its location by moving from place to place).


No, your understanding of human intellect does not have access. If you study Buddhism you will understand that everything can be known. Every aspect of all phenomena can be perfectly known.


That is your unsupported claim.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
You need to make up your mind. Initially you said velocity is a concept. Now you are saying the 'concept called velocity.' I am going on your first statement that velocity is a concept.


The two statements mean precisely the same thing.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Err...that's not what I said. I said the class of parts of partless particles is empty. To make your argument valid, you have to add a premise that refers to that empty class. But that premise actually says nothing.If something is partless it exists independent of anything else. So, by definition, it can not depend on anything else. This negates any possiblity of it depending on a cause or effect. If this is the case it can never change.
There is no reason a structureless particle could not be perceived, nor is there any reason it could not experience change in some way (such as changing its location by moving from place to place).If it moved from point A to B then it would have to have some relation to points A and B. What could change its position. You need to think about these points. They are extremely difficult to understand and take more than a few minutes of consideration to understand.

The basic premise is that if something exists independent of its parts it exists independent of anything else.
That is your unsupported claim. This is extremely supported. By logic, textural reference and experimental confirmation.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
The two statements mean precisely the same thing. Then consider the second statement I made...

It is clear that a concept is not always held in the mind. So if velocity is a concept velocity must cease to exist when it is not held in the mind.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
If something is partless it exists independent of anything else. So, by definition, it can not depend on anything else. This negates any possiblity of it depending on a cause or effect. If this is the case it can never change.


That would be clear if the definition of "partless" implied the definition of "independent". But the definition of "partless" simply implies "indivisible". How do you make the inference from the one to the indivisibility to independence?


If it moved from point A to B then it would have to have some relation to points A and B.


OK, fine.


What could change its position.


It's position could be changed by collision with another object, for instance.


You need to think about these points. They are extremely difficult to understand and take more than a few minutes of consideration to understand.


Now what I seem to be missing is your inference between "indivisible" and "unchangable".


The basic premise is that if something exists independent of its parts it exists independent of anything else.


But what about when the thing in question has no parts? It takes us back to the "empty class" I referred you to above.


This (edit: that any aspect of any phenomenon can be completely known) is extremely supported.


Perhaps you wouldn't mind supporting it, then?


By logic, textural reference and experimental confirmation.


Whose logic?
Which texts?
What experiments?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
It is clear that a concept is not always held in the mind. So if velocity is a concept velocity must cease to exist when it is not held in the mind.


As I said, I would say that velocity must cease to exist when there are no minds to think of it. That said, let me clarify exactly what I mean, because there are two ridiculous conclusions that can be mistakenly drawn.

Ridiculous Conclusion #1: The Conclusion of "X and ~X"
First, I suppose I could agree with your statement above if it said that velocity must cease to exist to me when I am not thinking about it, and that I re-form the concept each time I focus on it. What I would not agree with is that when I (one particular subject) cease thinking about velocity, that it ceases to exist in general. Because when I am not thinking about it, someone else could be. But if someone else is holding it, then for that person it does exist. That said, I am not trying to say that the concept can both exist and not exist simultaneously.

Ridiculous Conclusion #2: The Conclusion that Mistakes the Map for the Territory
Second, I am not equating "velocity" with "moving objects". That is, I am not implying that everything in the world simply ceases all motion when I am not holding the concept of velocity in my mind. What I am saying is that velocity is a useful mathematical concept we attach to observed moving bodies. And like all mathematical abstractions, it is not to be identified with the physical objects from which it is abstracted.

[protonman]

That would be clear if the definition of "partless" implied the definition of "independent". But the definition of "partless" simply implies "indivisible". How do you make the inference from the one to the indivisibility to independence?Partless means it exists independent of its parts. This impiles that it exists independent of anything. If something exists independent of its parts how could it exist in dependence on anything? Therefore it can not exist in dependence on cause and effect. You couldn't even perceive something that had no parts because it would be independent of perception. This idea extrapolates to many absurd consequences.

[Hurkyl]

Lack of imagination does not a proof make.

[protonman]

OK, lets settle this. Does the car have velocity?

[protonman]

I have a question on some of the things you posted before. You mentioned that QM had problems that led to quantum field theory which in turn has problems leading to string theory. I was wondering if you could explain these developments.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Lack of imagination does not a proof make. OK Yoda.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Lack of imagination does not a proof make. OK Yoda.

[Hurkyl]

Hrm, yes, repetative you are!



There are two questions in which I'm interested in seeing the answer.

If something exists independent of its parts how could it exist in dependence on anything?

Let's start with a less cluttered question, for one cannot possibly think to know the answer to your question without first knowing the answer to this question:

How can anything exist in dependence on anything?



Partless particles, meaning point particles as you know them,

(nevermind for the moment that point particles are only used for the purposes of approximation)

Why would you say a point particle is partless? Might a point particle be made of only one part (itself), or of several other point particles "bound" together?

[protonman]

How can anything exist in dependence on anything?I really don't understand the question. It is so obvious that I think you are joking. A vase exists independence on the clay that made it.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Partless means it exists independent of its parts.

No. Partless means that it has no parts.

This impiles that it exists independent of anything.

Nope. This may be a "common sense" notion, but it definitely does not have the status of a nessesary feature of existence.

The fact that, in our everyday lives, "things are dependent on their parts" is a result of the kind of interaction we have with our environment. This interaction, in turn, is a result of the nature of our perceptual systems and of the type of phenomena those systems are able to register.

The features of our everyday experiences, however, need not (and do not) stay the same at all scales of size, energy and other quantities.

This, in turn, is actually quite natural, but people keep stumbling on it.

A first example that comes to my mind is the mechanism for genetics. People can accept, without too much effort, that sperm does not include a "small baby" inside. It is clear that, in order to explain how a baby is formed, a different kind of explanation (other than "smaller babies") is to be found.

However, for some reason, when it comes to physics, people keep trying to find "smaller babies":

"since, in my experience, all watches, birds, rocks, trees, etc. are dependent on their parts, then this should hold always"

This, of course, cannot be an assumption when one explores the mechanisms that give rise to "my experience".

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I really don't understand the question. It is so obvious that I think you are joking. A vase exists independence on the clay that made it.

What does that clay "depend on"?

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
No. Partless means that it has no parts.Have you studied Buddhist Madhyahamika philsophy? If not you do not have enough understanding to refute what I am saying. The ideas I have written were and still are debated by incredible scholars for over 2000 years. I think it is nice that you think you have figured it out but you haven't.

I definitely think physics is interesting and somewhat useful but it is not all that it is made out to be. The teachings on this philosophy found in Buddhist literature are extremely hard to understand. There is no other system of thought that contains these ideas in existence. They are truly unique. If you read them you understand that an ordinary person could not have taught them. The person expounding these views had to have an understanding of reality beyond the ordinary everyday.

I'll be honest and up front. I have studied both, you have not. To be blunt you are not qualified to make the statements you have.

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
What does that clay "depend on"? You asked a question and I answered it. Do you not agree that the vase depends upon its clay?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
If something exists independent of its parts how could it exist in dependence on anything?

You need to answer Hurkyl's question regarding what you mean with "existence in dependence on" something.

However, as I mentioned before, regardless of you mean with that, the word "existence" is defined based on our perceptions (as everything else), and the properties of what gets assigned the adjective "existent" is also dependent on what we perceive. QM, QFT and others are actually (and not more than) summaries of our perceptions when using the best equipment and resources to "poke nature".

When we apply those methods to the macro scale, they show parts. For some reason, you are fine with what science has to say in that realm. However, when the very same methods and logic are applied to other set of phenomena, they show no parts, and then you decide you don't like them.

However, this methods do portray a self consistent picture of how perceptions are organized that, among other things, can put everything together without the need of "parts" in some foundational elements. The very existence of this framework shows that using partless things as a basic element is possible and useful, and that "partlessness" is independent of "cause and effect" , "perception", "mind" and other concepts with which they are entangled in some old philosophies.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Therefore it can not exist in dependence on cause and effect.

As I said before, the idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with "partlessness". Take for instance QFT (I am not saying it is the ultimately corrrect model of reality; just that it is a working model for many phenomena). On it, you can perfectly express causal relationships among partless particles.

i.e., you have on it, at the same time, partless particles that do exhibit strict causal interactions.

Ergo, your assertion that "partless" implies "no cause-effect" is false. QFT is a (very well developed and extremely useful) counter example of your claim.

You couldn't even perceive something that had no parts because it would be independent of perception.

Again, the fact that a photon does not have parts does not preclude it from interacting with my retina.

Regardless of the actual "partlessness" of photons, this is another example of a self-consistent model in which there are particles that are, at the same time partless and not independent of perception

[protonman]

It is hard to say without a particular example.

You can say all you want about QM and QFT but what it comes down to is that you don't know if the theories are even correct. This conversation is getting very tiring. I already told you you are not qualified to have this discussion.

The views that modern physics holds today were understood thousands of years ago. They were analyzed and understood. You guys are making the same mistake that the Buddhists were refuting. You don't even understand what I wrote before. If you read these teachings you understand they were not written by ordinary people. You read physics and you basically see that it is written by people who really have no idea what is going on.

The depth that the ideas of dependence and independence are analyzed in Buddhist philosophy is extremely deep. They have not even been addressed in western thought. I am willing to bet that this is the first time you have even heard these ideas. I have told you before you are not qualified to comment on this subject and I am done talking to you about it. It is getting boring babysitting. Just think about the ideas and try to come to an understanding of them.

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
As I said before, the idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with "partlessness". Take for instance QFT (I am not saying it is the ultimately corrrect model of reality; just that it is a working model for many phenomena). On it, you can perfectly express causal relationships among partless particles.

i.e., you have on it, at the same time, partless particles that do exhibit strict causal interactions.

Ergo, your assertion that "partless" implies "no cause-effect" is false. QFT is a (very well developed and extremely useful) counter example of your claim.



Again, the fact that a photon does not have parts does not preclude it from interacting with my retina.

Regardless of the actual "partlessness" of photons, this is another example of a self-consistent model in which there are particles that are, at the same time partless and not independent of perception No. The model says the particles are partless. Look, you just don't have enough understanding to think about what I am saying. I don't care about QFT. You can quote it all day. Buddhist practices are far more sustantiated than QFT. QFT is less than 100 years old. It is a baby theory. Buddhist philosophy is over 2000 years old and has stood the test of time.

[protonman]

You are really frustrating to talk to. In general you physics people are arrogant. I did enjoy talking to Tom but you have to start thinking and stop avoiding the questions you can't answer. I would rather talk about things you know as opposed to those you don't.

[russ_watters]

Ok, without delving into the actual arguments myself, these three statements seem to be the crux of the issue...Originally posted by protonman
No that according to your statements at the time when Newtonian physics made correct predictions of experiments it was a correct description of reality. If this is the case then the effects on length and time measurements due to high velocity did not exists at that time. Additionally, QM did not exist at that time.

What I discounted is experimental evidence where the objects under investigation are on the micro level. That is, the exist beyond the scope of our senses.

In fact, the same mistakes in QM the are explained by Buddhists are the ones being made in quantum field theories and string theories. It is all wrong from the get-go. Yes it may be a model whose application can make experimental predictions but the correspondence between theory and reality is non existent. These three statements, protonman, are incompatible with the scientific worldview and thats the reason you've met so much resistance here.

Newtonian physics was and is "correct" only within its limited domain. Many of its limitations were even known at the time Newton concieved of it. And thats ok - even though it's incomplete, it's still a useful theory. And thats why it's still taught in school.

QM and Relativity give us more than Newtonian physics: they enable us to make more accurate predictions and fit existing data better than Newtonian physics(in their domain). The underlying laws of the universe that Netwon's theories, Relativity, and QM deal with are eternal. Our theories are our attempt to understand and use them. And through time, science has gotten us closer to understanging them.

Regarding your objection to science using what cannot be observed directly with our senses, I find that ironic. I won't doubt that Buddhism can give you something science can't, but whatever Buddhism can give you occurs only in your mind and isn't observable with your senses. On the other side, the microscopic or other invisible observations that are made in science and our theories are based on can still be observed with your senses, even if only indirectly. You are, after all, using a computer to view this post. Perhaps you're also eating popcorn made in a microwave oven. If science couldn't accurately deal with happenings outside our direct ability to sense, these things could not work.

Whether Buddhism can give us a "better" understanding of reality than science or not, I don't know (I haven't achieved nirvana). But that question isn't germane to science. One thing that is clear is that in its domain, science has been wildly successful and in science's domain, Buddhism has given us little (I think it was Zero who pointed out there has never been a Buddhist on the moon).

In short, protonman, your worldveiw isn't scientific, its philosophical. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, but when you attempt to mix the two worldviews or interject philosophy into science's domain, thats when problems, such as the ones seen on this board, arise.

If you want to discuss science from a scientific point of view, thats why this board exists. If you want to discuss scicence from a philosophical point of view, thats why the philosophy sub-forums exist. But understand that the opinions of the mentors aren't going to change on this issue(Tom, btw, does speak for all of us - part of the reason we mentors were selected is we share the scientific worldview).

In any case, we do appreciate that you've softened your tone. So long as you keep it civil, you'll be welcome here.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Have you studied Buddhist Madhyahamika philsophy? If not you do not have enough understanding to refute what I am saying.

That's funny, I thought that, in order to refute QM, one would need to use arguments, not old names and repetitively allude to "over 2000 years".

The ideas I have written were and still are debated by incredible scholars for over 2000 years.

Congratulations to those scholars. As for this discussion, I still haven't seen much substance on your arguments against QM.

I definitely think physics is interesting and somewhat useful but it is not all that it is made out to be.

By whom? Usually news briefs about science do exaggerate what it can do and explain, I give you that.

The teachings on this philosophy found in Buddhist literature are extremely hard to understand.

Which does not make them correct, neither applicable to the discussion at hand.

There is no other system of thought that contains these ideas in existence. They are truly unique.

idem

If you read them you understand that an ordinary person could not have taught them.

idem

The person expounding these views had to have an understanding of reality beyond the ordinary everyday.

A true fan of QFT can say the same of it. Let's get back to real arguments, instead of each cheering for his idols, shall we?

I'll be honest and up front. I have studied both, you have not. To be blunt you are not qualified to make the statements you have.

The problem seems to be that you try to assess the correctness of what physical theory says about "existence", "causality", "reality" and other concepts, without first making sure that you are using the same language.

Budhist philosophy does have its own treatment for those words, and it surely has many things to say about how they relate to other concepts (also defined, either implicit or explicitly, within Budhist philosophy). However, without first identifying the differences between both, it makes no sense to go and try to use it to show the "mistakes" in what QM or QFT have verified about experimental outcomes.

[protonman]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ok, without delving into the actual arguments myself, these three statements seem to be the crux of the issue... These three statements, protonman, are incompatible with the scientific worldview and thats the reason you've met so much resistance here.

Newtonian physics was and is "correct" only within its limited domain. Many of its limitations were even known at the time Newton concieved of it. And thats ok - even though it's incomplete, it's still a useful theory. And thats why it's still taught in school.

QM and Relativity give us more than Newtonian physics: they enable us to make more accurate predictions and fit existing data better than Newtonian physics(in their domain). The underlying laws of the universe that Netwon's theories, Relativity, and QM deal with are eternal. Our theories are our attempt to understand and use them. And through time, science has gotten us closer to understanging them.

Regarding your objection to science using what cannot be observed directly with our senses, I find that ironic. I won't doubt that Buddhism can give you something science can't, but whatever Buddhism can give you occurs only in your mind and isn't observable with your senses. On the other side, the microscopic or other invisible observations that are made in science and our theories are based on can still be observed with your senses, even if only indirectly. You are, after all, using a computer to view this post. Perhaps you're also eating popcorn made in a microwave oven. If science couldn't accurately deal with happenings outside our direct ability to sense, these things could not work.

Whether Buddhism can give us a "better" understanding of reality than science or not, I don't know (I haven't achieved nirvana). But that question isn't germane to science. One thing that is clear is that in its domain, science has been wildly successful and in science's domain, Buddhism has given us little (I think it was Zero who pointed out there has never been a Buddhist on the moon).

In short, protonman, your worldveiw isn't scientific, its philosophical. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, but when you attempt to mix the two worldviews or interject philosophy into science's domain, thats when problems, such as the ones seen on this board, arise.

If you want to discuss science from a scientific point of view, thats why this board exists. If you want to discuss scicence from a philosophical point of view, thats why the philosophy sub-forums exist. But understand that the opinions of the mentors aren't going to change on this issue(Tom, btw, does speak for all of us - part of the reason we mentors were selected is we share the scientific worldview).

In any case, we do appreciate that you've softened your tone. So long as you keep it civil, you'll be welcome here. First you don't know if a Buddhist has been to the moon. Second, how many Buddhas were produced by physics. Third, I don't know what you were thinking but Buddhism does give access to objects beyond the senses. One is called inferential cognition. In addition, the Buddha knows all that exists. He knows the details of every particle in existence.

I have studied science. I know your mindset. But you need to expand your view beyond science. It is not going to bring you to a complete set of knowledge. The claim by physicists to even be close to something called a theory of everything is extremely arrogant. By making such statements they don't realize how ignorant they really are. They know a very little about a small sub-set of reality.

As for your approval if I need your permission to stay here there is going to be a problem. I have a hang-up with people like you passing judgement on me. I really don't give a hoot if I am welcome here. The reason my tone has changed has nothing to do with being welcomed here.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Look, you just don't have enough understanding to think about what I am saying.

Is that upposed to contribute anything to your positions? I find it extremely unlikely.

I don't care about QFT.

If you were going to bail out, then why did you start off saying that:

The same applies to quantum field theory and string theory. In fact, the same mistakes in QM the are explained by Buddhists are the ones being made in quantum field theories and string theories.


??

As of now, you have not given too much in way of arguments to substantiate such a statement.

You can quote it all day. Buddhist practices are far more sustantiated than QFT.

In what sense?

QFT is less than 100 years old. It is a baby theory. Buddhist philosophy is over 2000 years old and has stood the test of time. [/B]

Come on. This does not add anything to the discussion. Christianism, prostitution, heterosexual marriage, patriarchal family systems, domestic violence against women and children, slavery and many other institutions have "stood the test of time" as well, some for longer than that, and that does not mean they have anything to say about Neurobiology, or any other scientific discipline.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I find it quite odd that you try to disqualify QFT's conclusions on the basis of a theory that starts from a framework that is completely orthogonal to that of QFT.

[cookiemonster]

Maybe I'm out of line here, but something's been bugging me for most of this thread.

protonman, if you're unwilling to accept that you do not already have the answer to everything, why are you even here?

cookiemonster

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
You can say all you want about QM and QFT but what it comes down to is that you don't know if the theories are even correct.

"correct"?

If by that you mean logically sound, they are. This is how the term would be used in science.

However, if by "correct" you mean "the ultimate ontological theory of reality", then you are right, but that is no surprise for anybody. No one who has studied QFT would claim it to be the final theory.

The views that modern physics holds today were understood thousands of years ago. They were analyzed and understood.

Again, if what you mean by "the views" is just extremely general statements about perception and knowledge (of the type "all we have is perception", "perception is the basis for knowledgde", "knowledge cannot be destroyed", etc.), then sure, but there's no surprise on it.

If, on the other hand, you mean specific issues like the wave-particle duality, the measurement problem, the wavefunction collapse, etc., this is simply not true. These concepts require much more than a deep understanding of nature. The mathematical machinery involved is essential to properly describe each.

If you read these teachings you understand they were not written by ordinary people. You read physics and you basically see that it is written by people who really have no idea what is going on.

Please cite an example taken from the Feynman Lectures that shows so.

The depth that the ideas of dependence and independence are analyzed in Buddhist philosophy is extremely deep. They have not even been addressed in western thought. I am willing to bet that this is the first time you have even heard these ideas.

Dependence and independence are quite often used in the scientific context. They even have formal definitions in terms of joint probability distributions.

You probably assign a different meaning to it. If so, it is of course unsensical to try to qualify the scientific meaning based on the budhist description (or vice versa).

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by protonman
First you don't know if a Buddhist has been to the moon. I guess I should have qualified: No Buddhist has been to the moon in a physical sense that scientists would accept, ie Apollo 11. But I think you knew thats what I meant.But you need to expand your view beyond science. It is not going to bring you to a complete set of knowledge. The claim by physicists to even be close to something called a theory of everything is extremely arrogant. By making such statements they don't realize how ignorant they really are. They know a very little about a small sub-set of reality. "Everything" is only meant as everything within the field of physics, and I think you know that too. Scientists readily accept that there are things science can't ever do/know. What I find arrogant is philosophers not accepting that the converse is also true: there are things philosophy can't do/know.

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by cookiemonster
Maybe I'm out of line here, but something's been bugging me for most of this thread.

protonman, if you're unwilling to accept that you do not already have the answer to everything, why are you even here?

cookiemonster

i couldn't resist making a cameo in this thread. :P

i think that is an astute observation/question.

russ_watters, i challenge you to prove that no astronaughts were buddhists. are you assuming that because of the color of their skin they weren't buddists? do you think you have to label yourself as a buddhist to be a buddist?

cheers
phoenix

[protonman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read these teachings you understand they were not written by ordinary people. You read physics and you basically see that it is written by people who really have no idea what is going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please cite an example taken from the Feynman Lectures that shows so.When he says that light is both a particle and a wave.

[Hurkyl]

The Socratic method vs Buddhist logic, next up on philosophy deathmatch!


On a whim, I did a quick google search last night on Dharmakirti and read an article about him. The article suggested that his methodology emphasized that arguments should be made from a common ground.

I seem to remember suggesting the very same thing to you.

If I am to understand that you are presenting a faithful representation of modern Buddhist logic? And if so, from the fact you are not doing so, that this principle has been discarded since Dharmakirti's day?


Dharmakirti's methodology also emphasized that each word in an argument has only one meaning. Some words are, of course, ambiguous, but for the purposes of the argument only one meaning is used, which should be inferred from context or explicit mention.

You are using words in ways we've never seen before. Since we obviously cannot ascribe a meanings we have never seen to words, it would follow that you would have to explain the meaning in order to follow the spirit of Dharmakirti, or at least provide context from which we can infer a meaning.

You have not, despite being asked to do so. So, am I to assume that this principle has also been since discarded from Buddhist logic?


I also recall reading that Darmakirti's methodology employed the use of words (used properly) to form arguments that invoke knowledge. Arguments loosely resembled classical (eastern) logic in that there was a chain of reasoning from commonly accepted ground to a conclusion.

Since you make few arguments, and most of the ones you do start with the premise (whether explicit or implicit) "protonman is right", which is hardly common ground, am I to assume that this principle as well has been discarded from Buddhist logic?



You are really frustrating to talk to. In general you physics people are arrogant. I did enjoy talking to Tom but you have to start thinking and stop avoiding the questions you can't answer. I would rather talk about things you know as opposed to those you don't.

Frankly, we feel the same about you. (whoops, I'm speaking for others!)

One problem is that you don't "accept" our methods of pursuit of knowledge; you don't even seem to notice them. One method of learning proposes asking questions of those who know things (or claim to), starting with the basics of someone's position. You know, things like:

"How can anything exist in dependence on anything?"

(Oh, and I love the response: "I really don't understand the question. It is so obvious that I think you are joking. A vase exists independence on the clay that made it." And you accuse us of avoiding questions)

Oddly, it often seems that it is the basics that people have the hardest time answering.

[phoenixthoth]

hurkyl,
basic question: what are the basics?
cheers
phoenix

[protonman]

Regarding Dharmakirti first off I would like to know the scholar who wrote the articles. Secondly, the information found in translation, in general, is not very good and should not be relied upon. Lastly, I don't know enough about Dharmakirti's philosophy itself to comment on whether what I am studying is congruent with his original logic. I am confident that it is but I have not studied his writings directly. The little I know of his views I can say yes the method I use does reflect Dharmakirti's logic.

But you need to understand here that my arguments are not following formal Buddhist logic. They are more or less bits and pieces of Buddhist logic and not organized in any precise way. The way to do it formallly would be to make a statement something like:

Sound is impermanent because it is produced. At this point there are only two possible responses and the argument goes on.

Regarding your second comment I did give an answer I said A vase exists independence on the clay that made it. What this not sufficient for you? I think because you don't understand how I debate you think my answers are not answers. For example, someone asked me before what produces a vase and I said its cause. This is a perfectly logical and appropriate answer. It may not be the end of the discussion but it is an answer. What is important for the questioner is knowing what equestions to ask.

[Zero]

Does anyone else see the pattern here? First, Protonman's arguments were based on his superior knowledge of physics. When nobody bought that argument, he switched over to saying that it was based on 2000 year old Buddhist knowledge. Now, thanks to Hurkyl's posting of real Buddhist beliefs, protonman has abandoned his reliance on 2000 year old Buddhist claims. We've now moved on to the claim that protonman picks and chooses those ideas that suit him, while ignoring the rest of physics and Buddhism.

How can you get anywhere with someone who refuses to pick a position, and whose only constant is "protonman is always right"? None of this, apparently, is based on reason, logic, or evidence; it seems to be based on a need to pretend to be intelligent and non-conformist.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Does anyone else see the pattern here? First, Protonman's arguments were based on his superior knowledge of physics. When nobody bought that argument, he switched over to saying that it was based on 2000 year old Buddhist knowledge. Now, thanks to Hurkyl's posting of real Buddhist beliefs, protonman has abandoned his reliance on 2000 year old Buddhist claims. We've now moved on to the claim that protonman picks and chooses those ideas that suit him, while ignoring the rest of physics and Buddhism.You are obviously a very unreasonable person. What I said is that I can not be sure if my interpretation is exactly in accordance with Dharmakirti because I have not studied him. This is what true scholars do, i.e. they don't speculate on what they don't know or if they are speculating they indicate it. I don't want to speculate on Dharmakirti. Later I said that the logic I understand is in accordance with a Tibetan interpretation of Dharmakirti. You see among honest scholars there is always different interpretations. The same thing occurs in physics as well. While there is a core of commonly accepted beliefs, there is always a variety of different interpretation in relation to these core views.

Secondly, if you are going to base real Buddhist beliefs on what is posted on the internet that is your choice. I have good reason for what I say and you may think I am dodging the question but I am not. I know Tibetan and I know the mistakes that occur when translating from Tibetan to English. The majority of Westerners who study Buddhism get it wrong. For one thing they don't know Tibetan of another asian language. Secondly, they haven't studied with qualified teachers.

Third, I never claimed to know more about physics than anyone else. In reality since you sound like you have studied it more you probably do know more about the details. But I would say that a good amout people have not actually thought about it as I have.

How can you get anywhere with someone who refuses to pick a position, and whose only constant is "protonman is always right"? None of this, apparently, is based on reason, logic, or evidence; it seems to be based on a need to pretend to be intelligent and non-conformist. [/B] If you are interested in having an intelligent discussion fine. But don't get upset because you really don't understand what I am saying. In your attempt to discredit me you have gotten it all wrong and it makes you look silly.

[Zero]

There IS no argument here, protonman. You have declared yourself correct, you have declared everyone else to be incorrect, and have done both based on a shifting basis.

On the other hand, this also strikes me as someone rejecting science because it doesn't incorporate his personal favorite mythology. What you've got to realize is that not including your philosophy doesn't make science wrong; that is the great thing about science, in that it seeks to exclude the influence of personal beliefs.

Of course, IMO, saying that QM is incorrect because it contradicts Buddhism is like saying that geology is incorrect because it contradicts the Bible...you are welcome to your opinion, but it isn't based on logic, evidence, or reason. It is based on emotion and personal bias.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
protonman: Partless means it exists independent of its parts.

Ahrkron: No. Partless means that it has no parts.


Exactly. Or, as I said, “partless” means “indivisible”. It does not mean “independence” (of anything).


This impiles that it exists independent of anything.


Even if “partless” did mean “independent of its parts” (which it doesn’t), that would still not imply that it means “independent of anything”. You have to prove these things.


If something exists independent of its parts how could it exist in dependence on anything? Therefore it can not exist in dependence on cause and effect. You couldn't even perceive something that had no parts because it would be independent of perception.


How do you make this illogical leap? You go from “partless” to “independence” to “acausal” to “imperceptible” in the blink of an eye, without any logical justification whatsoever. If that is what Buddhist logic is all about, then you can keep it. You can use that “logic” to prove whatever you like.


This idea extrapolates to many absurd consequences.


It’s not the idea that extrapolates to many absurd consequences, it is your method of reasoning that does.

Next post…


Have you studied Buddhist Madhyahamika philsophy? If not you do not have enough understanding to refute what I am saying. The ideas I have written were and still are debated by incredible scholars for over 2000 years.


So why don’t you actually present an argument that proves your case? For all your bemoaning of our inability to think for ourselves, we (the “science types”) are the only ones here who are arguing rationally. I know you have written a lot of “stuff”, but I wouldn’t characterize very much of it as logical argumentation. I doubt any philosopher would, Eastern or otherwise.


I have told you before you are not qualified to comment on this subject and I am done talking to you about it. It is getting boring babysitting. Just think about the ideas and try to come to an understanding of them.


We could say the same to you about physics, as well as logic and philosophy. What you are doing here is neither science nor philosophy, but rather preaching an unsubstantiated mystical point of view. If you actually made an attempt to justify your claims, then we could consider it philosophy.


You are really frustrating to talk to. In general you physics people are arrogant. I did enjoy talking to Tom but you have to start thinking and stop avoiding the questions you can't answer.


LOL You have been running away from questions since you got here.

“What substrate is implied by Maxwell’s equations?”
“Where in deductive logic is a decision procedure to determine the truth values of statements?”

And the list goes on.


But you need to understand here that my arguments are not following formal Buddhist logic. They are more or less bits and pieces of Buddhist logic and not organized in any precise way.


Then why are you posting here? How do you expect to be taken seriously if you are unwilling or unable to render a coherent account of your outrageous claims?

[Zero]

Hmmmm...something I'm wondering: why the appeals to the "authority" of Buddhism, without any actual statements about what Buddhism claims? Instead of bringing up "Buddhist Madhyahamika philsophy", and claiming that it is more accurate than modern science, why not show an example of how one explains the evidence better than the other, using the principles of that philosophy? Otherwise, protonman, all you are doing is name-dropping to give an impression of your knowledge, without providing any proof of your knowledge.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Regarding Dharmakirti first off I would like to know the scholar who wrote the articles.

In any case, you should be able to answer Hurkyl's questions about starting from a common ground. Is that part of Dharmakirti (or Budhist) logic?

If you don't want to go into that, then you can tell us what is it that you use as "budhist logic". We don't need "babysitting" (as you so arrogantly called it), but just some general idea on what you are basing you positions.

The problem so far is that you keep claiming that your position is based on a "logic" and methods that are different from what we use. If this is true, just saying so does not build any basis for a meaningful discussion.

If you want to actually have a fruitful discussion, stop patronizing people (which takes you nowhere, and usually comes from weak positions), and start showing arguments.

For instance, why do you say budhist logic implies that the "particle-wave" description shows that physicists "have no idea what is going on"?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
There IS no argument here, protonman. You have declared yourself correct, you have declared everyone else to be incorrect, and have done both based on a shifting basis.

On the other hand, this also strikes me as someone rejecting science because it doesn't incorporate his personal favorite mythology. What you've got to realize is that not including your philosophy doesn't make science wrong; that is the great thing about science, in that it seeks to exclude the influence of personal beliefs.

Of course, IMO, saying that QM is incorrect because it contradicts Buddhism is like saying that geology is incorrect because it contradicts the Bible...you are welcome to your opinion, but it isn't based on logic, evidence, or reason. It is based on emotion and personal bias. You really need to learn to read better. I never said (check my posts) that science is wrong because it does not agree with Buddhism. Some areas of science I do not accept and this is based on logical grounds. I do not discount all of science as you seem to imply. Again, check my posts they are all self-consistent.

Lastly, science is full of personal beliefs as are most intellectual pursuits. If you claim that science is purely objective you are way off.

I want to recap because this is a very important point. I never said science, or anything for that matter, is wrong because it does not include my views or because it contradicts Buddhism. THE ONLY EASON is brought up Buddhism is because people here kept quoting their sources so I quoted mine. My idea here was to debate purely on the basis of reason without reference to each others individual schools directly. The reasoning behind this is that we both don't accept the same thing and therefore the argument would go nowhere. As a side note this is exactly what Dharmakirti said about a common ground which you so boldly claimed I ignored. Look back at my posts. I made this point with Tom a few times and he did the same.

If you are going to criticize me at least do the research. All you are doing is making yourself look like a baby instead of someone who is trying to have an intelligent discussion.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I have a question on some of the things you posted before. You mentioned that QM had problems that led to quantum field theory which in turn has problems leading to string theory. I was wondering if you could explain these developments.


In a nutshell, Quantum Mechanics (QM) has a problem called nonlocality. That is, its interactions are "at a distance", meaning that the effects are simultaneous with causes with no lag time for the propagation of information. But the problem with QM is not the Q, it's the M. That is, Classical Mechanics has the same problem. That is why your argument in the Newton's Third Law thread was so misguided.

Enter Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT solves the problems by replacing point particles with local quantized fields. This takes care of the locality problem, but it introduces a new difficulty. That is, when we try to calculate any observable in QFT, we get an infinite result. We can get around this using mathematical tricks, but that is not entirely satisfactory. Also, QFT can only be solved using perturbative methods, which is also not entirely satisfactory. Furthermore, QFT does not provide a framework for unification of the fundamental forces of nature, and it is believed that they should be unified.

Enter String Theory (ST). ST solves the problem of the "sick infinities" of QFT, and it actually requires that the four forces be unified. It still has the problem of not being solvable without perturbation methods, but theorists are working on that.

There are other approaches, but I am not too familiar with them.

[Zero]

Do we really need to name-calling and insults, or can we get an assertion based on something besides "I don't accept it"?

WHY don't you accept certain things? If your lack of acceptance is based on Buddhism, then we would like to see a quote from some Buddhist book, philosopher, pamphet, magazine, etc., which shows the Buddhist philosophy with leads you to that lack of acceptance.

[protonman]

Enter Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT solves the problems by replacing point particles with local quantized fields. This takes care of the locality problem, but it introduces a new difficulty. That is, when we try to calculate any observable in QFT, we get an infinite result. We can get around this using mathematical tricks, but that is not entirely satisfactory. Also, QFT can only be solved using perturbative methods, which is also not entirely satisfactory. Thakns for the post, helpful information. I did have some questions on the above paragraph.

What is the difference between a point particle and a localized quantum field? The reason I ask this is that I thought point particles were part of QFT. How is this related to the mistake you claim I made regarding Newton's third law.

Isn't renormalization somewhat a mathematical trick itself?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Do we really need to name-calling and insults, or can we get an assertion based on something besides "I don't accept it"?

WHY don't you accept certain things? If your lack of acceptance is based on Buddhism, then we would like to see a quote from some Buddhist book, philosopher, pamphet, magazine, etc., which shows the Buddhist philosophy with leads you to that lack of acceptance. You are making it very difficult to be polite. You don't even read my posts. All the answers to the questions you keep on asking are right in front of you. You don't believe what you see, you see what you believe.

Until you make the smallest effort to engage in an honest discussion we are through. Look at these other people Tom, etc. They are at least interested in having a discussion even if we disagree. You are just out to discredit me. But I know why. You either can't read or you just don't understand what is being written and are too enbarased to admit it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
You are making it very difficult to be polite. You don't even read my posts. All the answers to the questions you keep on asking are right in front of you. You don't believe what you see, you see what you believe.

Until you make the smallest effort to engage in an honest discussion we are through. Look at these other people Tom, etc. They are at least interested in having a discussion even if we disagree. You are just out to discredit me. But I know why. You either can't read or you just don't understand what is being written and are too enbarased to admit it. So where is the post where you rejected a specific aspect of QM or science in general that you reject, and the specific quoting of some Buddhist philosopher to back up your rejection?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
So where is the post where you rejected a specific aspect of QM or science in general that you reject, and the specific quoting of some Buddhist philosopher to back up your rejection? I said that peception can not be established as valid or invalid via scientific method. Therefore, you can not establish the validity of the investigative technique. Secondly, I never quoted anyone to back this up. As I have said countless times my arguments are based on reason and logic, not appeal to an authority. This is unlike the science community who constantly refer to experiment as the source of authority. This prompted me to bring in my sources. It was after the fact, that is after you people kept bringing in your experimental refernces, that I brought in mine.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I said that peception can not be established as valid or invalid via scientific method. Therefore, you can not establish the validity of the investigative technique. Secondly, I never quoted anyone to back this up. As I have said countless times my arguments are based on reason and logic, not appeal to an authority. This is unlike the science community who constantly refer to experiment as the source of authority. This prompted me to bring in my sources. It was after the fact, that is after you people kept bringing in your experimental refernces, that I brought in mine. Well, can we SEE the reason and logic, instead of reading your claim to reason and logic?

You have claimed many things...knowledge of physics, knowledge of Buddhism...but you haven't displayed how either leads to your specific positions. You haven't brought in any souces, you name-dropped sources, which is not the same thing. For instance, you haven't seen Tom or anyone else say "Einstein(or any other physicist) says this is true, so it is true". You have claimed that certain things are illogical because of Buddhism, but you haven't shown which parts of QM conflict with which parts of Buddhism. You haven't actually displayed your reasoning on any level, at all. You have asserted that your reasoning is logical, but you've never actually(to my knowledge) SHOWN that reasoning.

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Zero
Does anyone else see the pattern here? First, Protonman's arguments were based on his superior knowledge of physics. When nobody bought that argument, he switched over to saying that it was based on 2000 year old Buddhist knowledge. Now, thanks to Hurkyl's posting of real Buddhist beliefs, protonman has abandoned his reliance on 2000 year old Buddhist claims. We've now moved on to the claim that protonman picks and chooses those ideas that suit him, while ignoring the rest of physics and Buddhism.

How can you get anywhere with someone who refuses to pick a position, and whose only constant is "protonman is always right"? None of this, apparently, is based on reason, logic, or evidence; it seems to be based on a need to pretend to be intelligent and non-conformist.

i think that is a very astute observation, zero. we are all teachers of teachers here. but we lack what others have.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, can we SEE the reason and logic, instead of reading your claim to reason and logic?

You have claimed many things...knowledge of physics, knowledge of Buddhism...but you haven't displayed how either leads to your specific positions. You haven't brought in any souces, you name-dropped sources, which is not the same thing. For instance, you haven't seen Tom or anyone else say "Einstein(or any other physicist) says this is true, so it is true". You have claimed that certain things are illogical because of Buddhism, but you haven't shown which parts of QM conflict with which parts of Buddhism. You haven't actually displayed your reasoning on any level, at all. You have asserted that your reasoning is logical, but you've never actually(to my knowledge) SHOWN that reasoning. It is not my problem if you can't follow my arguments. I have stated them over and over again and am done doing that. You are so full of yourself. Again, I never said anything was true because a particular person said it.

I presented arguments why science could not establish if the perception if valid or not. I presented agruments why partless particles could not exist. I am tired of dealing with you and your flaming. As far as I am concerned we are done.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I said that peception can not be established as valid or invalid via scientific method. Therefore, you can not establish the validity of the investigative technique.


You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. By the way, people have responded to this. Hurkyl and I both asked you what makes you think logic is more reliable than perception.


Secondly, I never quoted anyone to back this up. As I have said countless times my arguments are based on reason and logic, not appeal to an authority.


So you keep saying. But you have never actually presented any of your "reason and logic", so how can we know for sure?


This is unlike the science community who constantly refer to experiment as the source of authority.


While it is true that we appeal to experiment when talking about scientific theories (indeed, it would be irrational to do otherwise!), it is also true that the only logical arguments presented here are the ones presented by the "science types".


This prompted me to bring in my sources. It was after the fact, that is after you people kept bringing in your experimental refernces, that I brought in mine.


It's fine to bring in your sources, but at some point you are actually going to have to build a case based on what those sources say.

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by protonman
It is not my problem if you can't follow my arguments. I have stated them over and over again and am done doing that. You are so full of yourself. Again, I never said anything was true because a particular person said it.

I presented arguments why science could not establish if the perception if valid or not. I presented agruments why partless particles could not exist. I am tired of dealing with you and your flaming. As far as I am concerned we are done.

You are so full of yourself. or are you? are you full of yourself or not? if so, why? if not, why not? are you being honest with yourself?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
What is the difference between a point particle and a localized quantum field? The reason I ask this is that I thought point particles were part of QFT.


I see that SelfAdjoint has already answered your question better than I could in your "What is QFT" thread.


How is this related to the mistake you claim I made regarding Newton's third law.


You were trying to draw a conclusion on the causality (or lack thereof) between an action-reaction force pair based on classical mechanics, when that theory does not have such notions built into it. As I kept saying, classical mechanics says nothing of the nature of interactions between particles, and it treats them nonlocally.

In other words, classical mechanics assumes that information regarding forces travels infinitely fast, which makes your attempt to use classical mechanics to prove tha the information travels infinitely fast nothing more than a circular argument.


Isn't renormalization somewhat a mathematical trick itself?


Yes, and that was precisely the trick to which I was referring.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
It is not my problem if you can't follow my arguments. I have stated them over and over again and am done doing that. You are so full of yourself. Again, I never said anything was true because a particular person said it.

I presented arguments why science could not establish if the perception if valid or not. I presented agruments why partless particles could not exist. I am tired of dealing with you and your flaming. As far as I am concerned we are done. You keep repeating your assertion that you have given an argument, and yout you actually haven't. I asked for you to point to a post where you presented your logic. You have not done so. You have stated certain things as being true, but have not to my knowledge actually shown why those statements are true.

Instead, you have attacked me personally...and STILL refused to show me where I am wrong. You have in the past claimed scientific knowledge, then backpedaled when asked to answer specific questions(about Maxwell's equations, for instance.) You have claimed that Buddhism backs up your claims, and then packpedaled from that position as well(when asked about specific Buddhist teachings).

Tom has pointed it out. Hurkyl has pointed it out. Ahrkron has pointed t out. I have honed in specifically on the same complaint that we all have, which is that you do NOT present evidence, reasoning, or logic. You instead make declarations, you have claimed that Buddhism is superior to physics without actually quoting any Buddhism, and generally refuse to support your assertions.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I presented arguments why science could not establish if the perception if valid or not.


And you never presented an argument on why logic is any more reliable, which brings us back to Square One.


I presented agruments why partless particles could not exist.


And those arguments have been thoroughly rebutted.


I am tired of dealing with you and your flaming.


Asking you to justify your claims is not flaming. I know you think you have already justified them, but you have not. The "logic" you appear to be using looks like it can be used to prove just about anything at all. There is no apparent rhyme or reason to any of it. If you are here to make a claim, then the onus is on you to make yourself understood.

[phoenixthoth]

the way things are going, this conversation will never end.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
. As I have said countless times my arguments are based on reason and logic, not appeal to an authority. Buddhist practices are far more sustantiated than QFT. QFT is less than 100 years old. It is a baby theory. Buddhist philosophy is over 2000 years old and has stood the test of time. Care to show us some substantiated claims of Buddhism? Or was this in fact an appeal to authority?

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Zero
Care to show us some substantiated claims of Buddhism? Or was this in fact an appeal to authority?

socratic method vs buddhism deathmatch, round 30,000! FIGHT

when will you people finally get it right?

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
socratic method vs buddhism deathmatch, round 30,000! FIGHT

when will you people finally get it right? We can't have a "deathmatch" yet...someone's got to actually find Buddhism and get it to the arena, instead of just announcing that it is going to win. [;)]

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Zero
We can't have a "deathmatch" yet...someone's got to actually find Buddhism and get it to the arena, instead of just announcing that it is going to win. [;)]

touche. ;P

but when will you guys ever learn.

i challenge all of you to PROVE, beyond all doubt, that i am not a chat-bot.

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
touche. ;P

but when will you guys ever learn.

i challenge all of you to PROVE, beyond all doubt, that i am not a chat-bot. Quit trying to go off-topic...start a new thread for that, and I'll tell you my reasoning for it.


And when I say "I'll tell you my reasoning", I will actually do so, instead of making the assertion that I am right.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
And you never presented an argument on why logic is any more reliable, which brings us back to Square One.

And those arguments have been thoroughly rebutted. I don't have too. All I said was that your method of investigation is not valid. If the method is not valid then the claims are not valid.

You have refuted nothing. You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge. Therefore, the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements.

[phoenixthoth]

this debate is futile.

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
touche. ;P

but when will you guys ever learn.

i challenge all of you to PROVE, beyond all doubt, that i am not a chat-bot. What is the definition of a chat-bot?

[phoenixthoth]

Agreement is the seed of salvation.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't have too. All I said was that your method of investigation is not valid. If the method is not valid then the claims are not valid.

You have refuted nothing. You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge. Therefore, the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements. Lots of assertions in this post...no reasoning or logic. You have to back up any assertion you make. You refuse to do so. Here, let me spell it out for you as clearly as possible. You make assertions, I'll quote them back to you; to back them up you will have to answer my questions.

Assertion:"your method of investigation is not valid"

Questions: Why not? What method of investigation isvalid? Be specific.

Assertion: "You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge."

Questions: On what specific evidence, logic, or reason do you base this? Which method would be preferable to you? Be as specific as possible, and show examples of how your prefered method is more accurate than the scientific method.

Assertion: "the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements"

Questions: What, if any, is the evidential or logical basis do you have to reject the outcome of a specific experiment? What explanation do you have to explain the evidences provided by a specific experiment?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't have too. All I said was that your method of investigation is not valid. If the method is not valid then the claims are not valid.

But you are not showing any evidence of a method of investigation to support your claims.

As people have repeatedly told you, stating things does not count as argument. So far you have provided extremely little in terms of arguments.

You have refuted nothing. You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge.

As you well say here, you keep stating things, but showing no alternative method.

Therefore, the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements.

Many of your statements don't even need full blown experiments to be refuted, but observation and logic. You are still to answer many of the questions we have asked you.

[protonman]

According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions. Since you don't even understand the mind you can not talk about valid and invalid perceptions.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions. Since you don't even understand the mind you can not talk about valid and invalid perceptions. Another unfounded statement.

When are you going to get it through your head that we cannot even address your statements in a meaningful way if you refuse to demonstrate the reasoning behind your statements?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't have too (edit: don't have to show that logic is more valid than perception). All I said was that your method of investigation is not valid. If the method is not valid then the claims are not valid.


You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. And you keep ignoring my point, which is that the method you are using (which you call "logic", but which I am sure is nothing of the kind) requires justification.


You have refuted nothing. You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge.


This was in reference to the "partless particles" argument. And yes, I did refute it. You just ignored the refutation. That much is made obvious by your critique of it: I did not refer to any experiment to refute your claim. I used only logic. Specifically, I pointed out that your argument is not deductively valid, and that to make it valid we have to insert a statement that in actuality claims nothing as it refers to an empty class ("parts of partless particles").


Therefore, the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements.


Fine. But next time, instead of attacking the refutations I didn't make, how about having a go at the refutation that I did make?

This has been typical of your argumentative style thus far. You just keep running away from all the arguments that are put to you. If this keeps up, I won't hesitate to lock this thread, just like the others. It is really just a waste of bandwidth.

edit: fixed a typo

[Tom Mattson]

protonman: According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions. Since you don't even understand the mind you can not talk about valid and invalid perceptions.

Zero: Another unfounded statement.

When are you going to get it through your head that we cannot even address your statements in a meaningful way if you refuse to demonstrate the reasoning behind your statements?


Exactly.

Protonman, do you see a pattern here? Do you really not understand our incredulity? Can you really not understand why every person here thinks you are full of it?

It is because you consistently refuse to explain yourself!

The above quote from you is a perfect example. That's not a philosophical argument, it's a bald faced assertion.

[phoenixthoth]

this reminds me of how the emperor watched luke and his own father duel. ponder that one.

this debate is rather "electrifying" but it's getting real old real fast.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions.

The scientific method just uses the fact that perceptions are consistent among different persons, and that they yield repeatable outcomes. This, in turn, is an observation, not an assumption.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. And you keep ignoring my point, which is that the method you are using (which you call "logic", but which I am sure is nothing of the kind) requires justification. I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.

If you want to know inference is a valid perception because there are types of inferences that perceive an object exactly as it exists. Inference can understand the relation between different phenomena and through understanding this relation something about a subtle phenomena can be understood through its relation to a gross phenomena. For example, based visual perception a vase appears that it is not changing instant to instant. But from the point of view of logic it must be changing instant to instant. Why is this? Because if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent. If something is permenent and suddenly becomes permanent then you have a cause that arrises on its own. This violates cause and effect and those who accept this view have the burden of explaining why if cause and effect are not valid why do flowers not suddenly grow in the sky.

[phoenixthoth]

"The scientific method just uses the fact that perceptions are consistent among different persons, and that they yield repeatable outcomes. This, in turn, is an observation, not an assumption."

i have consistent observations with protonman. not necessarily in full agreement, but not blatantly inconsistent. one might even say we're, in a way, one in the same wavelength.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.

The point everybody is making here is that you are NOT using logic or reason.

[Zero]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The scientific method just uses the fact that perceptions are consistent among different persons, and that they yield repeatable outcomes. This, in turn, is an observation, not an assumption. Something to consider, since this is a philosophical thread:

Even if perception and observation are wrong, they are still useful if they are wrong in the exact same way for every observer. The consistancy is what we are going for, not the absolute "truth value".

Also, all philosophies which depend on perception being false or unreliable are bankrupt on the face of it, because if you claim that perception is incorrect, any statements you make are also based on the same unreliable perception. Therefore, the statement "QM is false because it is based on unreliable perception" is logically invalid, because that philosophical position invalidates any and all statements about the "truth value" of an observation.

[phoenixthoth]

i can appreciate those sentiments, zero.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.


Actually, there is. Justification of logic is, in fact, a philosophical problem, whether you choose to admit it or not.


If you want to know inference is a valid perception because there are types of inferences that perceive an object exactly as it exists.


No, inferences do not "perceive" anything. People perceive things.


Inference can understand the relation between different phenomena and through understanding this relation something about a subtle phenomena can be understood through its relation to a gross phenomena.


No, inferences do not "understand" anything. People understand things.


For example, based visual perception a vase appears that it is not changing instant to instant. But from the point of view of logic it must be changing instant to instant. Why is this? Because if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent. If something is permenent and suddenly becomes permanent then you have a cause that arrises on its own. This violates cause and effect and those who accept this view have the burden of explaining why if cause and effect are not valid why do flowers not suddenly grow in the sky.

Simple attempts at the use of deduction do not in any way, shape or form justify its use.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.

You also bear the responsibility to explain and rationalize your attack. I can say "The moon is made of green cheese. You are wrong to say otherwise.", and I have made an assertion. If that assertion is to be taken seriously, I must logically defend my point of view. There have been people who have been on the moon, and have found no green cheese. The moon does not appear to be green to any observer. The measurements of tidal forces and orbital mechanics show that a green-cheese moon would not be dense enough to behave in the way it does. Without a logical counter-argument, my position is properly ignored.



Where is your counter-argument? Where is the evidence or logical chain of thought that leads to your conclusions?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point everybody is making here is that you are NOT using logic or reason.

And that's another thing:

Protonman, you are not using anything that is even remotely recognizable as a "logic". You just keep stringing together statements that have nothing to do with one another (such as when you asserted the chain of implications:

"partless"-->"independence"-->"imperceptible"-->"acausal"

These things have nothing to do with each other! And yet you happily keep posting along as though you have stated some indisputable fact, and you make no attempt whatsoever to justify the claim. This has been typical of you since you arrived at Physics Forums.

When is it going to stop?

[phoenixthoth]

when is it going to stop?

the way things are going, never.

can i make a suggestion? :P

agree to disagre for now.

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i can appreciate those sentiments, zero. The only use of a thread like this is for me to clarify my own thinking and discussion skills...and it seems to be working rather well, don't you think?

For instance, protonman has been attacking a strawman, IMO. No scientist makes statements about a theory's absolute truth. Since that is the case, protonman's general position, "science cannot claim that QM is true" is a strawman, since science doesn't make that claim. What he would like to do, it seems, is claim that QM is invalid, without presenting anything to replace it. Since he hasn't presented a counter-theory, and concedes that QM makes accurate predictions, there is no logical reason for him to continue to attack QM, especially on the tenuous ground which he has chosen.

[phoenixthoth]

"The only use of a thread like this is for me to clarify my own thinking and discussion skills...and it seems to be working rather well, don't you think?"

yes, indeed, i would like to think so.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it.

So far it has been quite a lousy attack.

If you want to know inference is a valid perception because there are types of inferences that perceive an object exactly as it exists.

You would need to prove this. Not only that, but you would definitely need to quote in detail what you mean here by "perceive", "object" and "exists", since your assertion cannot hold for the common notion of perception.

For example, based visual perception a vase appears that it is not changing instant to instant. But from the point of view of logic it must be changing instant to instant. Why is this? Because if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent.

Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

If something is permenent and suddenly becomes permanent then you have a cause that arrises on its own.

I guess you meant "non-permanent" in the fist one. Didn't you?

If so...

Unjustified assumption #2:
"the character of 'being a cause' arises with 'permanency'"

Unjustified assumption #3:
"Dynamical evolution of a system cannot render it permanent"

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.

This violates cause and effect and those who accept this view have the burden of explaining why if cause and effect are not valid why do flowers not suddenly grow in the sky. [/B]

Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit]

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by ahrkron
So far it has been quite a lousy attack.

ad hominem.



You would need to prove this. Not only that, but you would definitely need to quote in detail what you mean here by "perceive", "object" and "exists", since your assertion cannot hold for the common notion of perception.

why?

Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

so what if it's unjustified? aren't all axioms unjustified?

I guess you meant "non-permanent" in the fist one. Didn't you?

If so...

Unjustified assumption #2:
"the character of 'being a cause' arises with 'permanency'"

Unjustified assumption #3:
"Dynamical evolution of a system cannot render it permanent"

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.



Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit]

i like the counterexample attempt, lousy as it is.

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"By definition that which is impermanent is changeing every instant.

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.A permanent phenomena is an existant phenomena that does not change instantaneously.

Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.If you accept that permanent phenomena can produce an effect you accept that a result can arise without a cause. IF this is so then you must explain why flowers do not arrise in the sky suddenly or horns do not suddenly grow from my head. In other words, why is there a law of cause and effect.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit] [/B] No cauality can never be violated in the physical world, by definition. All these ideas about time travel and string theory are mistaken. By definition a cause must preceed its result.

Look, I told you that I don't accept QM or anything after it. Why do you keep bringing it up. My arguments appeal to reality, the world and experience. This is the only thing we agree upon.

It is really frustrating talking to people who are so dense. You don't understand what I am saying so instead of asking you just come up with some pathetic attempt to refute it. Do you know how long I have been thinking over these concepts. For over 7 years I have been contemplating the meaning of impermanence and I still don't understand it that well. People spend their entire lives trying to understand this idea. It is extremely difficult to grasp. I have been contemplating physics since I was in high school. These ideas I have are the result of an intense amout of study. More importantly though I had teachers who understood what it means to think. Today there are very few great thinkers left. Even in your field, people like Einstein and Newton would be laughing at your work. Read the principa it is full of definitions. Read Einstein and you understand that his insights were based on logic and reasoning. He was one of the last great physicists because he knew how to think.

[phoenixthoth]

[zz)] [zz)] [zz)]

[Zero]

What we're probably all thinking right now is that instead of "contemplating" physics, you probably should have attempted to study it. That way, you might have some idea of what you are talking about.

[phoenixthoth]

hey, maybe you should be a PF mentor. oh yeah, you already are. (hint, hint)

homework is good.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
By definition that which is impermanent is changeing every instant.

That being the case, and given your assertion that "if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent", you still need to prove that:
1. nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time; and
2. The vase is one of those.

If you accept that permanent phenomena can produce an effect you accept that a result can arise without a cause.

Just to make sure, do you mean here "permanent" or "impermanent".

IF this is so then you must explain why flowers do not arrise in the sky suddenly or horns do not suddenly grow from my head. In other words, why is there a law of cause and effect.

Let me rephrase what I said: assume for a moment that causality does not hold in all circumstances (forget about QM), this in itself does not imply that the universe would do every possible odd thing you can think of.

A simple example: we could perfectly imagin a world in which the result of coin-drops were acausal events (i.e., "really" random). That does not imply that elephants would fly in that world.

No cauality can never be violated in the physical world, by definition.

This is an issue in which you cannot make things to be as you wish "by definition". Unless of course, you have a different definition for "causality", "violated", "physical" or "world".

Causality is, in the end, the name of a feature that we observe on the behavior of the world, and it being violated or not can only be judged on the base of observation.

All these ideas about time travel and string theory are mistaken.

Probably, but I'm still eager to read your arguments to justify such a statement.

Look, I told you that I don't accept QM or anything after it. Why do you keep bringing it up.

I used it on its role as a formal system in which macroscopic causality can arise even when microscopically it is violated, to show that your argument was flawed (since it assumed that once causality is violated in the least, flowers should grow in the air).

As a more formal (and general) rebuttal, you can do a google search for "paraconsistent logic". On it, mutually inconsistent premises exist in a system that, nonetheless, is non trivial, in the sense that not all statements are provable in the system.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
My arguments appeal to reality, the world and experience. This is the only thing we agree upon.

The problem I see, and I think others do as well, with your position, is that it seems to stem from common sense positions about what reality "should" be like, including the unjustified extrapolation of what it does in the everyday-life size and energy scales to atomic and astronomic scales.

I don't doubt that you have studied Buddhist concepts in depth, but when you claim to have found mistakes in the way modern science interprets its data (and especially if you attempt to use a buddhist framework to straighten up their analysis), you need to do a proper translation of concepts between the two disciplines. Otherwise, no matter how deep the buddhist concept of dependence may be, it cannot yield any conclusion about the measurable concept of probability (and statistical independence, for instance).

It is really frustrating talking to people who are so dense.

We are not trying to be; but you need to concede that you have not made a great role explaining your method.

You don't understand what I am saying so instead of asking you just come up with some pathetic attempt to refute it.

Show were such attempt goes wrong then, and I'll tell you why I think it was ok.

Do you know how long I have been thinking over these concepts. For over 7 years I have been contemplating the meaning of impermanence and I still don't understand it that well. ...

Many people here have worked hard at understanding nature full time for longer than that. And believe me: being a scientist does mean that you do seriously care for understanding what you are doing. It is not just a matter of "plugging numbers" or "pushing buttons".

Please, spare us the talk about how difficult this is or for how long you have tried. Instead, try to show the fruits of that understanding in the form of well though arguments and flameless replies.

[protonman]

That being the case, and given your assertion that "if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent", you still need to prove that:
1. nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time; and
2. The vase is one of those.In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest.

[cookiemonster]

Guess we should all just give up then.

cookiemonster

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest. You are wrong again, my young friend. If you cannot trust your mind, then you cannot trust your mind to judge who is wiser than you and who is not. How can you trust what someone tells you, when you cannot even trust what your senses tell you?

Your "logic" negates itself rather neatly.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
You are wrong again, my young friend. If you cannot trust your mind, then you cannot trust your mind to judge who is wiser than you and who is not. How can you trust what someone tells you, when you cannot even trust what your senses tell you?

Your "logic" negates itself rather neatly. I am not saying that you can not trust any minds. What I am saying is that there are certain phenomena which are evident to us such as cars, trees and people. These exist, no question. But there are more subtle levels of existence which are not directly accessable via the senses. Therefore we must rely on logic. For example, if we see smoke on a hill we can infer that there is fire. Although we can not see the fire we know it is there. This is a valid perception through inference.

[cookiemonster]

Which has what--nothing?--to do with Zero's point?

cookiemonster

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I am not saying that you can not trust any minds. What I am saying is that there are certain phenomena which are evident to us such as cars, trees and people. These exist, no question. But there are more subtle levels of existence which are not directly accessable via the senses. Therefore we must rely on logic. For example, if we see smoke on a hill we can infer that there is fire. Although we can not see the fire we know it is there. This is a valid perception through inference. In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existance of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existance of things that have even less evidence to support their existance?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existance of anything at all.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existance of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existance of things that have even less evidence to support their existance?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existance of anything at all. I'm not making anything up as I go along. Everything I have said is self-consistent. Furthermore, I said I do accept things like trees and cars. I do accept what is conventionally agreed upon by all. How can you say I don't accept anything when I said I accept the existence of smoke?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existance of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existance of things that have even less evidence to support their existance?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existance of anything at all. You amaze me as well as everyone here. How can no one criticize you for your statements. You say I don't accept anything. But in the post above I say I accept trees and such, no question. I go on to say that certain phenomena are not accesable via the sense and therefore we must rely on logic. The atom is a perfect example. It is beyond the range of the senses.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I go on to say that certain phenomena are not accesable via the sense and therefore we must rely on logic. The atom is a perfect example. It is beyond the range of the senses.

So, you do accept the existence of the atom? (it is a serious question, please answer).

[phoenixthoth]

BURN!

well done! :P

i believe the atom both exists and it does not. that is not a paradox, it is just difficult to understand with your mind, unless you're canute or someone.

[Hurkyl]

Inference can understand the relation between different phenomena and through understanding this relation something about a subtle phenomena can be understood through its relation to a gross phenomena.

I'm surprised nobody has picked up on this aspect of what you said:

One can understand the small through its relation to the large.

You have suggested that the modern physics of the small is invalid because it is dealing with things that are "beyond perception". However, we can infer about such things based on their interactions with things that aren't beyond perception.


And, incidentally, the reverse is just as important. We can infer about the large through its interactions with the small, which allows us to do, for instance, astronomy.



What is the difference between a point particle and a localized quantum field?

I'm probably wrong, but this is how I understand it:

The "average" of such a field behaves like we would expect a point particle to behave. Not exactly as such, but very similarly. For many problems, the difference is insignificant enough that it does not affect results, thus we can approximate them as point particles.


For a very simplistic analogy, imagine we have a very long string. We can wiggle the string which causes waves to form. These waves are carrying energy. If the waves are small enough, then their spatial extent may be irrelevant for the problems we're doing, and we can treat them as if we have created particles that are carrying energy instead of wiggling a string to produce a wave, which may greatly simplify whatever we were trying to calculate.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I'm not making anything up as I go along. Everything I have said is self-consistent. Furthermore, I said I do accept things like trees and cars. I do accept what is conventionally agreed upon by all. How can you say I don't accept anything when I said I accept the existence of smoke? By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existance of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existance of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existance of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existance of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along. When I refute QM in reality I am establishing the everyday world. QM refutes cause and effect which is in direct contradition of the conventional world. If there is no law of cause and effect than every day objects such as trees and cars could not exist.

The reason being is that these things arrise in dependence on causes that are different from themselves. A seed planted in the ground produces a plant. There is a direct cause and effect relationship. It is impossible for a tree to produce it's own seed. If this were the case it would be pointless to talk about any kind of order in the world. But there obviously is as anyone can see.

The reality of everyday objects should never even come into question. A vase exists because we can use it to drink from. It performs a function that is in accordance with its definition. Your analysis is falling into the two extremes. One which states nothing exists and the other which states that things exist inherently or untimately; that is independent of anything else.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existance of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existance of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along. Further more by rejecting QM I am not rejecting the existence of electrons, atoms, etc. QM is a mechanics that attempts to describe the physical behavior of particles. It is not a theory of what exists. In reality all of physics is nothing more than a model. It is subject to the constraints of the mathematics used to describe it. For example, all the problems with infinities and sigularities arise are a result of the attempt to present a mathematical picture of reality. Math and physics can approximate the quantitative nature of reality but offer no conclusive statements on the untimate nature of the phenomena they seek to describe.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
When I refute QM in reality I am establishing the everyday world. QM refutes cause and effect which is in direct contradition of the conventional world. If there is no law of cause and effect than every day objects such as trees and cars could not exist.

The reason being is that these things arrise in dependence on causes that are different from themselves. A seed planted in the ground produces a plant. There is a direct cause and effect relationship. It is impossible for a tree to produce it's own seed. If this were the case it would be pointless to talk about any kind of order in the world. But there obviously is as anyone can see.

The reality of everyday objects should never even come into question. A vase exists because we can use it to drink from. It performs a function that is in accordance with its definition. Your analysis is falling into the two extremes. One which states nothing exists and the other which states that things exist inherently or untimately; that is independent of anything else. I think it is interesting that your "philosophy" is even incoherent to yourself. You have already rejected human perception as being flawed. Therefore you reject all existance at any level, because human perception of marcoscopic things is also flawed.

You are the one who wants to use a double standard, not me.


Also, the statement "A vase exists because we can use it to drink from." is again unfounded by any reasoning or logic. You cannot simply make statements without showing supporting evidence or logic.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is interesting that your "philosophy" is even incoherent to yourself. You have already rejected human perception as being flawed. Therefore you reject all existance at any level, because human perception of marcoscopic things is also flawed.

You are the one who wants to use a double standard, not me. I said in that not all perception is valid. I did not say that all perception is invalid. Perception, as I explained it, refers to the senses not to all minds. In particular sight. The level of atoms and particles is beyond the scope of the senses. You need to understand this very important point. The rejection of perception only applies to a certain scale.

Also, the statement "A vase exists because we can use it to drink from." is again unfounded by any reasoning or logic. You cannot simply make statements without showing supporting evidence or logic. That is the evidence. That is the reason. The questions you are asking are indicative of what I said. You are looking for some inherent reason to establish something. The logic goes like this. A vase exists because it functions in accordance with its definition. Your qualification for existence is some kind of meta-physical overly complex idea. The reality of the conventional world is simply that all people agree on something being a vase, give it a definition and accept it. There is nothing more.

[Zero]

You don't understand Physics, Buddhism, or Logic...is there anything you do understand, and does Physics Forums have an area for you to post that understanding in? Shall we create a Sports forum for you, maybe?

You have chosen to pick and choose which perceptions are valid and which are not. That arbitrary and subjective choice renders your philosophy incoherent and inconsistant.

You still continue to make unfounded statements and label them as "logic". You need to study logic some more, and come back and try again when you are done. I mean, in your last post you listed your unfounded assertion as both evidence and reason...the rules of both common sense and logic don't allow you to do that.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
[B]You don't understand Physics, Buddhism, or Logic...is there anything you do understand, and does Physics Forums have an area for you to post that understanding in? Shall we create a Sports forum for you, maybe?What do you know about Buddhism that qualifies you to make this statement?

You have chosen to pick and choose which perceptions are valid and which are not. Prove it.

You still continue to make unfounded statements and label them as "logic". You need to study logic some more, and come back and try again when you are done. I mean, in your last post you listed your unfounded assertion as both evidence and reason...the rules of both common sense and logic don't allow you to do that. Have you studied Buddhist logic?

[Zero]

I'm not a Buddhist, I've made no claims to have studied Buddhism in any meaningful way. You have made that claim, and have consistantly refused to back up that claim, as well as every other claim you have made. Assertion after assertion after assertion, and not even a smidgen of supporting information of any kind.

Are you claiming that Buddhist "logic" allows you to make unfounded assertions and call them evidence? If so, can we see what Buddhist book, what Buddhist philosopher makes the same claims as you do, in the same way? You claim(occasionally, inconsistantly, and as you feel like it) that your thought are based on Buddhism. All we have is your word on that, though.

I've debated Christians on this board, for instance, and while I don't agree with a single thing they say regarding the Bible and physics, at least they have quotations from the Bible or from Christian philosophers that at least back up the idea that their ideas are based on Christianity.

You have refused time and again to show that your thoughts and Buddhist philosophy are in line with each other. We are therefore forced to believe that you know as little about Buddhism as you do about physics, which is next-to-nothing.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm not a Buddhist, I've made no claims to have studied Buddhism in any meaningful way. You have made that claim, and have consistantly refused to back up that claim, as well as every other claim you have made. Assertion after assertion after assertion, and not even a smidgen of supporting information of any kind. If you haven't studied Buddhism how can you say I know nothing about it?

Are you claiming that Buddhist "logic" allows you to make unfounded assertions and call them evidence? If so, can we see what Buddhist book, what Buddhist philosopher makes the same claims as you do, in the same way? You claim(occasionally, inconsistantly, and as you feel like it) that your thought are based on Buddhism. All we have is your word on that, though.If you haven't studied Buddhism you would not be able to distinguish between what I say and what is being quoted.

I've debated Christians on this board, for instance, and while I don't agree with a single thing they say regarding the Bible and physics, at least they have quotations from the Bible or from Christian philosophers that at least back up the idea that their ideas are based on Christianity.

You have refused time and again to show that your thoughts and Buddhist philosophy are in line with each other. We are therefore forced to believe that you know as little about Buddhism as you do about physics, which is next-to-nothing. I am not sure what you idea of a proof would be. I can quote texts all day but if you have not studied them how can you accept them? This is not the mark of a scholar.

What is more important is the logical consistency of the argument, not the ability to quote sources you don't accept. This is the point I have made over and over again.

I can give you definitions from texts and in accordance with these definitions my logic is perfect. Again my statement from before:

A vase exists because it can perform a function.

If you knew how to pursue a logical argument instead of saying my logic is inconsistent you would pick apart this particular argument.

[Zero]

LMAO

You would dare bring up "logical consistancy"?!?

You had better either put up or shut up. Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

Then, you can back up your assertions with your own logic, laid out for everyone to see.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by protonman
In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest

I have two questions I'd like to ask you.

The first is, how can you be certain that "Buddhist" teachings are what the Buddha himself taught? My studies of "Buddhist" doctrine that developed after the Buddha have convinced me much of it has nothing to do with anything the Buddha taught.

For example, jump ahead a thousand years after the Buddha’s death and you find prolific temple building, sutra copying and chanting, relic veneration, pilgrimages to and circumambulation of commemorative monuments (the stupas), worship of semi-divine beings, along with a plentiful collection of stories, philosophic works, new “scriptures,” and beliefs—none of which had been taught or recommended by the Buddha.

My point is, without the presence of the realized Buddha to keep things of track, the religion of Buddhism may have wandered far from what the Buddha was really talking about. Your ideas about "Buddhist logic" particularly strike me that way.

As far as I can tell, there is only one logic, which is a thought system for describing how things are ordered. We can rely on logic because most of the observable world is ordered; if it weren't ordered, logic would be useless to us. So logic is how our mind "follows" the ordered aspects of reality.

I myself have extensively studied the conversations of the Buddha, and I have yet to find a single instance when he strayed from what is considered proper logic today. Study his dialogues, for instance, and in a very Socratic way (or was Socrates doing things in a Buddhist way), the Buddha leads his students to conclusions with brilliant logic. While his premises might not be considered suitable for an empirical setting, I cannot see how anyone today would view his logic as other than "normal."

My second question takes off from Ahrkron's point that, ". . . given your assertion that 'if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent,' you still need to prove . . . nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time . . ."

My quesion is, why couldn't there be some aspect of existence which is both quite mutable and absolutely unmutable? I'm not trying to be mystical, but rather set up an explanation for something I know the Buddha taught.

He said, "“There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

Hmmmm. A paradox? Not necessarily. The idea of a "plane" could be interpreted as a ground state of existence out of which all apparent reality arises. In that case, the "parts" we see are actually forms of this ground state. Since the way parts are raised out of the ground state is through order, that's why logic works when thinking about them.

However, while logic works with "forms" it does not work with the ground state. That is why the Buddha taught only a direct experience of the ground state (samadhi) could reveal anything about it.

I'll add this in case you might be interested, if I were to hypothesize about the problem you are having here, it is that you have all the Buddhist stuff mushed together into one big mess, and you are trying to show the irrelevance of physics when there is no need to. Physics is understood one way, and what the Buddha was pointing to is known another. Why try to mix the two?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
LMAO

You would dare bring up "logical consistancy"?!?

You had better either put up or shut up. Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

Then, you can back up your assertions with your own logic, laid out for everyone to see.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time. In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.' Can you explain why, instead of stating that it is true?

[protonman]

I answered your question. Remember asking ....Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

[Zero]

Ok, that is step one...now, can you explain WHY this should be true?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

The point of asking for a source is to be able to find and read the material. Some people in the forums have access to quite good libraries for eastern literature. That way, we not only learn about where your statements come from, but we can also read the context in which they were written.

So, you say this comes from "Teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos"? Can you cite the author? editor? page?

[phoenixthoth]

who cares who originally wrote it?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
who cares who originally wrote it?

The point is not to find out who wrote it, but to identify the writing to be able to get a copy of it.

Protonman has all along been saying that he has devoted years to study serious buddhist scholars (or some such). He should be able to at least show one well formed reference to the work of one of them, and a couple quotes that show the agreement between such scholar and protonman's ideas.

[Zero]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point of asking for a source is to be able to find and read the material. Some people in the forums have access to quite good libraries for eastern literature. That way, we not only learn about where your statements come from, but we can also read the context in which they were written.

So, you say this comes from "Teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos"? Can you cite the author? editor? page? It comes from the Dolly Llama. It is in an essay about the mind. I don't understand what it has to do with quantum mechanics, physics, or anything else, though.

[Zero]

At this point, this isn't even about protonman's specific ideas, IMO. It is about proper uses of logic, and ways to compellingly present ideas.

[protonman]

First off, glad to see someone here is not an idiot.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I have two questions I'd like to ask you.

The first is, how can you be certain that "Buddhist" teachings are what the Buddha himself taught? My studies of "Buddhist" doctrine that developed after the Buddha have convinced me much of it has nothing to do with anything the Buddha taught.In all honestly you need to either study more or you are studying the wrong topics.

For example, jump ahead a thousand years after the Buddha’s death and you find prolific temple building, sutra copying and chanting, relic veneration, pilgrimages to and circumambulation of commemorative monuments (the stupas), worship of semi-divine beings, along with a plentiful collection of stories, philosophic works, new “scriptures,” and beliefs—none of which had been taught or recommended by the Buddha.

My point is, without the presence of the realized Buddha to keep things of track, the religion of Buddhism may have wandered far from what the Buddha was really talking about. Your ideas about "Buddhist logic" particularly strike me that way.I can't validate if Buddha taught this stuff or not. The Buddha was not anti-philsophical though. He predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna 600 years after his [the Buddha] passing into parinirvana. Nagarjuna wrote many texts explaining the Buddha's teachings through extensive reasoning. You need to understand that the abilities of people to understand the Buddha's teachings is increasing from the time the Buddha actually taught. In general, this is a time of degerated views which is why you get so many strange ideas comming out of physics like strings and such. So at the time Buddha taught he didn't need to use the same methods are people 600 years later or today. At the time of Buddha simply by him saying the word 'Ah' beings gained realizations. These were very advanced meditators. Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

In addition, there is a quote from one of the perfection of wisdom sutras where Buddha says 'as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will abide, as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will teach.'

As far as I can tell, there is only one logic, which is a thought system for describing how things are ordered. We can rely on logic because most of the observable world is ordered; if it weren't ordered, logic would be useless to us. So logic is how our mind "follows" the ordered aspects of reality.I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.

I myself have extensively studied the conversations of the Buddha, and I have yet to find a single instance when he strayed from what is considered proper logic today. Study his dialogues, for instance, and in a very Socratic way (or was Socrates doing things in a Buddhist way), the Buddha leads his students to conclusions with brilliant logic. While his premises might not be considered suitable for an empirical setting, I cannot see how anyone today would view his logic as other than "normal."I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application. The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

My second question takes off from Ahrkron's point that, ". . . given your assertion that 'if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent,' you still need to prove . . . nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time . . ."

My quesion is, why couldn't there be some aspect of existence which is both quite mutable and absolutely unmutable? I'm not trying to be mystical, but rather set up an explanation for something I know the Buddha taught.The two conditions you stated are mutually exclusive. How could there be something that was both?

He said, "“There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

Hmmmm. A paradox? Not necessarily. The idea of a "plane" could be interpreted as a ground state of existence out of which all apparent reality arises. In that case, the "parts" we see are actually forms of this ground state. Since the way parts are raised out of the ground state is through order, that's why logic works when thinking about them.

However, while logic works with "forms" it does not work with the ground state. That is why the Buddha taught only a direct experience of the ground state (samadhi) could reveal anything about it.I don't know enough about the Sutra you are commenting on. In most cases the quality of translations is quite poor.

I'll add this in case you might be interested, if I were to hypothesize about the problem you are having here, it is that you have all the Buddhist stuff mushed together into one big mess, and you are trying to show the irrelevance of physics when there is no need to. Physics is understood one way, and what the Buddha was pointing to is known another. Why try to mix the two? Buddhism is a description of the world. In a sense it is a physics but is not so concerned with experimenting in the physical world in the same way scientists do. It is concerned with understanding the nature of the physical and non-physical world though. There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together. It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate. The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
It comes from the Dolly Llama. It is in an essay about the mind. I don't understand what it has to do with quantum mechanics, physics, or anything else, though. You have crossed the line and we are done.

As for the name of the text I made it up you idiot. I told you there is no point in me quoting a text because you couldn't validate it anyway. Akhron made an excellent point, you can't verify it by just my posting. What is more important, and what I have been saying all along, is that the reasoning behind the arguments is what is important for this exact reason.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
First off, glad to see someone here is not an idiot.

In all honestly you need to either study more or you are studying the wrong topics.

I can't validate if Buddha taught this stuff or not. The Buddha was not anti-philsophical though. He predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna 600 years after his [the Buddha] passing into parinirvana. Nagarjuna wrote many texts explaining the Buddha's teachings through extensive reasoning. You need to understand that the abilities of people to understand the Buddha's teachings is increasing from the time the Buddha actually taught. In general, this is a time of degerated views which is why you get so many strange ideas comming out of physics like strings and such. So at the time Buddha taught he didn't need to use the same methods are people 600 years later or today. At the time of Buddha simply by him saying the word 'Ah' beings gained realizations. These were very advanced meditators. Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

In addition, there is a quote from one of the perfection of wisdom sutras where Buddha says 'as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will abide, as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will teach.'

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.

I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application. The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

The two conditions you stated are mutually exclusive. How could there be something that was both?

I don't know enough about the Sutra you are commenting on. In most cases the quality of translations is quite poor.

Buddhism is a description of the world. In a sense it is a physics but is not so concerned with experimenting in the physical world in the same way scientists do. It is concerned with understanding the nature of the physical and non-physical world though. There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together. It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate. The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby. May I ask who you are calling an idiot? Who are you calling a baby?

And, of course, now we see much more clearly that this is a religious-based worldview, which has nothing to do with logic, reason, or science. Cool.

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point is not to find out who wrote it, but to identify the writing to be able to get a copy of it.

Protonman has all along been saying that he has devoted years to study serious buddhist scholars (or some such). He should be able to at least show one well formed reference to the work of one of them, and a couple quotes that show the agreement between such scholar and protonman's ideas. For the most part the texts I have studied do not exist in translation. There is one exception although it is not a very good one. It is a big text called 'Debate in Tibetan Buddhism' (I believe) by Daniel Purdue published by Snow Lion publications.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
For the most part the texts I have studied do not exist in translation. There is one exception although it is not a very good one. It is a big text called 'Debate in Tibetan Buddhism' (I believe) by Daniel Purdue published by Snow Lion publications. Are you claiming to be able to translate Buddhist writings yourself, from the original Pali?

[phoenixthoth]

to one degree or another, i believe it is possible to understand something or some subject without knowing much about it. when michio kaku talks about science, i believe i can learn more about what science is rather than about science (although i learn about science as well).

[Fliption]

Has Logical Atheist turned Buddists?

Protonman, exactly why are you posting in this thread? Even if I concede that you know everything you say you do and everyone else just truly doesn't get it, then there is only one thing left to do. Help them get it! I perceive them to be asking probing questions, trying to get to something that they can understand. You don't seem to be helping much. Telling people they don't understand and insulting their education won't help them understand your position. They are even making it easy on you and asking for reference materials. Again, you aren't providing much. Maybe you think they just aren't capable of understanding? Well in that case, I have to ask again "Why are you posting in this thread?"

Either help them understand your position or don't post. Just stop the condescending tone, please.

[phoenixthoth]

words of wisdom, my friend. the same about condescending tones goes for us all. also realize that often when we read between the lines, we are blind.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

(snip)

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.


Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.

At least, you have never presented the rudiments of such a logic anywhere in these Forums.


I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application.


Greek logic is independent of any applications. It can be applied to anything that is amenable to a two-valued logic.


The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.


And that connection is....?


There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together.


Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible. [:(]


It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate.


Actually, most of us do know how to proceed in a debate. Furthermore, it is apparent that you do not. See, debates proceed by elucidating one's point. That way, the other person can try your point of view on for size and see if he likes it. 'Elucidating' is what we all have been doing (ok, maybe not Zero, j/k [:D]). What you have been doing is emphatically denying our point of view with no justification whatsoever, refusing to address our arguments or answer direct questions, and hiding behind a veneer of arrogance that I can only assume masks your ignorance of the subjects being discussed.


The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.


Well, as Ahrkron correctly pointed out, your attacks so far have been "lousy".

[phoenixthoth]

"Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible."

maybe he's trying to elucidate it using obfuscation. that's like luke trying to lift an x-wing fighter.

tell us, protonman, what exactly is your position. also, if necessary, provide evidence for your position.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Fliption
Has Logical Atheist turned Buddists?

Protonman, exactly why are you posting in this thread? Even if I concede that you know everything you say you do and everyone else just truly doesn't get it, then there is only one thing left to do. Help them get it! I perceive them to be asking probing questions, trying to get to something that they can understand. You don't seem to be helping much. Telling people they don't understand and insulting their education won't help them understand your position. They are even making it easy on you and asking for reference materials. Again, you aren't providing much. Maybe you think they just aren't capable of understanding? Well in that case, I have to ask again "Why are you posting in this thread?"

Either help them understand your position or don't post. Just stop the condescending tone, please. If you noticed my conversations with those who really are interested in an intelligent conversation is cordial. I am have decided to break off conversation with Zero though.

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
"Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible."

maybe he's trying to elucidate it using obfuscation. that's like luke trying to lift an x-wing fighter.

tell us, protonman, what exactly is your position. also, if necessary, provide evidence for your position. Position on what?

[protonman]

Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by protonman
Position on what?

let's start with what you know about God.

[Hurkyl]

I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

Odd, I saw smoke today and there was no fire.

[phoenixthoth]

there was a fire. otherwise, there'd be no smoke, right?

maybe it was coming from your sizzling brain... hmm... ponder that.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
If you noticed my conversations with those who really are interested in an intelligent conversation is cordial. I am have decided to break off conversation with Zero though. Good call...hide from any questions. If you could answer a question, the conversation could move on...so, what other languages do you speak besides English and Pali?

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke. This is wrong. Other causes could be:

1) chemical reation, no fire.
2) dry ice "smoke" mistaken for smoke.
3) hallucination of smoke.

[phoenixthoth]

zero, imo, not only are you apt, you are articulate. but we're all articulate.

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
let's start with what you know about God. What do you mean by god?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Odd, I saw smoke today and there was no fire. No you didn't.

[pallidin]

I have read this thread with much interest.
But I have also taken notice that most of the questions presented by Protonman are actually statements of personal belief disquised as "questions" in an effort to impose his view of reality through flowering rhetoric and subtley induced respondant contradictions leading to an internal confusion and thus a potential to adhere to his beliefs for "soothing".
I am not easily fooled, am I Protonman!
You are seeking followers, are you not? Is that not the actual purpose of your being here?
Of course it is.
That is your only purpose here.
You are dismissed.

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
zero, imo, not only are you apt, you are articulate. but we're all articulate. I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

[phoenixthoth]

didn't buddhists say everything is an illusion? if so, then the mind is an illusion. we can control our minds, can we not? then we can control illusions. then we can control the illusion.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2 What is "buring"?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2 What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here (http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/) is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
didn't buddhists say everything is an illusion? if so, then the mind is an illusion. we can control our minds, can we not? then we can control illusions. then we can control the illusion. What do you mean by illusion?

[phoenixthoth]

zero, don't be so picky. you know darn well he meant burning.

Originally posted by protonman
What do you mean by illusion?

ah...

*ponders.

well, define illusion and maybe i'll answer that to your satisfaction.

edit: this picture is worth looking at:
http://www.storeitonline.nl/funny/funny/pictures/Toch_staat_alles_stil.gif

can you control the motion of the wheels?

i can to a degree. but i can't make it go away except when i stop looking at it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here (http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/) is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature? That was exactly my point. If you can mistake other things for smoke, then the statement "if someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong". Someone can "see" something incorrectly.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman


2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2 This is illogical. We know absolutely for a fact that you can percieve something that is not there, and vice-versa.

Ahhh...I remember at the start of this thread, when protonman claimed that experimental evidence wasn't worth accepting because it was based on subjective perception, and now protonman puts all his faith in perception.

Still going to claim to be a physics teacher, too?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here (http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/) is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature? Yes I meant to write burning.

How do you know your car is your car? Because you remember that it is yours and you paid for it. Understanding smoke is not profound. If you know what smoke is you see it and from your memory you know it is smoke. You have a valid perception of it. If someone saw that image you showed and thought it was smoke they would be wrong because it is not smoke. This is what I have been saying all along. A valid perception is valid because the way it understands an object and the way the objects exists are in conformity.

You would have to develop some reason that allows you to infer what it is. This is what scientists do all the time. Based on the images they see they can infer properties about the object.

[phoenixthoth]

in fight club, tyler asked the nameless one if he liked being clever?

-excuse me?

-DO YOU LIKE BEING CLEVER?

-well, yeah.

-then keep it up, way up.

-now, shall i show you the crotch or the rear end?

protonman, keep it up, way up.

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in fight club, tyler asked the nameless one if he liked being clever?

-excuse me?

-DO YOU LIKE BEING CLEVER?

-well, yeah.

-then keep it up, way up.

-now, shall i show you the crotch or the rear end?

protonman, keep it up, way up. Keep what up?

[pallidin]

I must admit, protonman, you have a most incredibly bizzare way of twisting valid questions and comments to suit your invalidated position(s) in the interest of your own pressing thoughts.
This disturbs me a great deal, and I would hope it disturbs you.
But apparently not.

[protonman]

Originally posted by pallidin I must admit, protonman, you have a most incredibly bizzare way of twisting valid questions and comments to suit your invalidated position(s) in the interest of your own pressing thoughts.How?
This disturbs me a great deal, and I would hope it disturbs you.
But apparently not. Good for you.

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by protonman
Keep what up?

*hits protonman with a stick.

i shouted my question at you. it was a thinly veiled compliment.

[Hurkyl]

No you didn't

Did too!

(If I hadn't seen smoke that day, I would've related a previous experience where I saw smoke without fire)

Electric stoves are nifty things; they can provide the heat to produce smoke without any fire being involved. [:)]


Anyways, have you cared to notice that "fire is the cause of smoke" is determined empirically?

[phoenixthoth]

touche.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Did too!

(If I hadn't seen smoke that day, I would've related a previous experience where I saw smoke without fire)

Electric stoves are nifty things; they can provide the heat to produce smoke without any fire being involved. [:)]


Anyways, have you cared to notice that "fire is the cause of smoke" is determined empirically? Shhh!!! Empirical evidence only counts when protonman wants it to count...the rest of the time it is irrelevant. He must have learned something special when he was translating ancient Buddhist texts, studying physics in college, or while he was on his quest for the Holy Grail. Something "special" like how to use a double standard to make rational discussion impossible?

[phoenixthoth]

this conversation is rational, a new kind of rational, if you please.

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
this conversation is rational, a new kind of rational, if you please. Was there something wrong with the "old rational", besides it not allowing anyone with a computer and some marijuana to pretend to be logical and "deep"?

[Hurkyl]

Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely.

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Zero
Was there something wrong with the "old rational", besides it not allowing anyone with a computer and some marijuana to pretend to be logical and "deep"?

no, no, zero, don't get me wrong. there's nothing wrong with old rational. neither is there with new rational.

[phoenixthoth]

hurkyl, it sounds like you're smoking dope. did you smoke some at 4:20 am this morning?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely. You need to stop being "old rational" and start being "new rational"(also known as "irrational" apparently)

[phoenixthoth]

i agree.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Oh, and there's more irony. The whole phrase goes something like:


The hill has fire because the hill has smoke,
like a kitchen, unlike a lake.


However, my kitchen does not have fire, but it does have smoke (occasionally).

And there have been circumstances where lakes have been on fire, and producing smoke. (or is it just rivers? I can't say I remember with complete accuracy here)


So, this phrase is a contradiction right from the beginning, when interpreted absolutely. First off I have no idea where your quote came from.

It is not an absolute statement. They are talking about a particular case. What my statement is trying to do is demonstrate that certain things can be understood inferencially. It is a learning tool. If you don't want to learn you will not benefit from it. If you do there is value in the statement.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
What my statement is trying to do is demonstrate that certain things can be understood inferencially.
No. You used it to try to show that "Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement". Let me refresh your memory:

After quoting Tom saying:
Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.
You replied:
I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.
(I highlighted the phrase in red).

Logic cannot be used to validate the truth of a statement; it only can verify its being consistent with other statements.

As for the possibility of attaining knowledge via inference, that is the whole point, since you started off saying that QM is unacceptable because of not being "perceivable".

However, every bit of formalism in QM is a result of inferential work, and (serious) interpretations of that formalism do strictly stick to logic.

[edit: fixed the spacing]

[protonman]

Logic cannot be used to validate the truth of a statement; it only can verify its being consistent with other statements.The logic does validate the statement. If someone says there is no fire when they see smoke (in the situation I am talking about) they are wrong. What is so hard about this?

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
The logic does validate the statement. If someone says there is no fire when they see smoke (in the situation I am talking about) they are wrong. What is so hard about this? Only if you choose to ignore all other cases where someone will see smoke and there is no fire. Since there are occasions where people have 'seen smoke" and there is no fire, logic doesn't back you up a bit.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement.


No, observation determined the truth value of it. I promise you, if you had never seen smoke or fire before, you would not have made the inference the first time.

But whatever. You have--yet again--either completely misunderstood or completely ignored my point. Not only have you not shown that deductive logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement, you have also not shown that it can reveal the noumenal nature of either "smoke" or "fire".

You have claimed that logic can do both of these things, and I have repeatedly asked you to show how, and you have consistently dodged the issue.


If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.


That is not true. If you've ever tried to start a fire with sticks, you would have noticed that the wood starts smoldering (smoking) before the fire ignites.

So much for your "logic".

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
The logic does validate the statement. If someone says there is no fire when they see smoke (in the situation I am talking about) they are wrong.


It does not. The logic is only as good as the premises, which are determined to be true or false based on observation.


What is so hard about this?


Only your skull, apparently.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
No, observation determined the truth value of it. I promise you, if you had never seen smoke or fire before, you would not have made the inference the first time. It is true that in order to make the inference you must have seen fire produce smoke. There is no question about this. I said there must be a relation between smoke and fire and it must be understood by the person making the inference. This understanding comes from observation. But once the observation has been made in the future the inference is valid. For example, consider you are in the mountains and see smoke rising above a hill. If you ask a person who understands that fire is the cause of smoke if there is smoke they will say yes. The statement that there is smoke is true based on a reason. What is the problem with this?

[protonman]

I would like to know something Tom. What do you mean by truth?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
It is true that in order to make the inference you must have seen fire produce smoke. There is no question about this. I said there must be a relation between smoke and fire and it must be understood by the person making the inference. This understanding comes from observation.


I'm with you so far. But this raises an important question:

If you accept observational evidence in this case, then why not accept it in all cases? It has repeatedly been brought to your attention that you have been drawing an arbitrary line as to what information you will or will not accept.


But once the observation has been made in the future the inference is valid.


Note: The inference you are describing in the part in red is that:

If there is fire, then there must be smoke.
There is fire.

Therfore, there must be smoke.

Keep this in mind for the next part.


For example, consider you are in the mountains and see smoke rising above a hill. If you ask a person who understands that fire is the cause of smoke if there is smoke they will say yes.


The inference you are describing in the part in green above is that:

If there is smoke, then there must be fire.
There is smoke.

Therefore, there must be fire.


The statement that there is smoke is true based on a reason. What is the problem with this?


The problem with it is obvious. The two inferences are not related to each other at all, inasmuch as the starting premise of the two arguments are not logically equivalent! You can easily check that yourself via truth tables.

The conditional in the first argument, which is based on observation, is of the form:

p-->q

The conditional in the second argument is the converse of that statement, and is of the form:

q-->p

Because the second statement is not logically equivalent to a statement that is based on observation (such as the first conditional), it has no basis in observational evidence.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that there can be smoke without fire, so the second conditional isn't even true.

Furthermore, none of what you posted gives any indication that you can derive the noumenal nature of either "smoke" or "fire", as you claimed you could.

Furthermore, even if your post were correct, you couldn't possibly prove your case based on any number of examples. You need to present the rudiments of the logic that can do the things you claim it can do.

Debating with you is just like debating with one of our old members named Alexander. He used to insist that mathematics governed the universe (instead of merely describing it), and that any aspect of reality could be derived mathematically (you can do a search for those debates, if you are so inclined). If we substitute "Buddhist logic" for "mathematics", it is easily seen that you sound like the same broken record.

You, just like him, are failing to do the one thing that needs to be done to establish your claim.

Show us the "math" (or in your case, "logic") that can do what you claim it does!

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I would like to know something Tom. What do you mean by truth?

Synthetic truths are statements that affirm observations made in the universe. An example is "On the moon, objects fall with an acceleration that is equal to 1/6 of the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the Earth."

Analytic truths are statements that are known to be true a priori, by definition. An example is "All umarried men are bachelors."

[protonman]

I never said if there is fire there must be smoke.

Second, I acknowledged that there are cases where there is smoke but no fire. What I am talking about is if you are in a place where there are no chemicals, etc. that would produce smoke without fire. This is an example to describe the power of inference.

There is no question that if you understand the relation between fire and smoke you can infer the existence of fire from seeing smoke. In fact, I asked a 16 year old today and it was obvious to him. You can not negate the everyday world.

I think behind your thinking is a desire to find some kind of basis, which is exists independent of anything else, on which to establish the truth of a statement. A so called inherent refernce frame against which the truth or falsity of all statements can be measured against. Perhaps you need to put down Kant and read Wittgenstein.

[Hurkyl]

So, what you're saying is, "if there's nothing that can produce smoke without fire, then if we see smoke we can infer there must be fire." [:D]


Ok, back to seriousness. The point you were missing is that we were using this same example to demonstrate the weakness of inference.

It's usually true, but you'll make mistakes if you try to assume it is always true.

You also brought up the issue of illusions and mistakes; when you think you see smoke, but are wrong, your inference is likely to make a mistake too.


So it seems that if you want to increase your knowledge of the universe, you need to identify when general rules (like "when there's smoke, there's fire") fail to be true, and to recognize when you're faced with an illusion or an otherwise mistaken perception...

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I never said if there is fire there must be smoke.


Yes you did!

edit: In the first argument, you said that the observation of

fire-->smoke

formed the basis of the future inferences when seeing smoke.

In the second argument, you said that if a person sees smoke rising, then they can validly conclude that a fire caused it, and that is wrong.


Second, I acknowledged that there are cases where there is smoke but no fire.


Not in the post I commented on, you didn't. You said that the inference "If smoke, then fire" is true based on observation of "If fire, then smoke", and that is wrong.


What I am talking about is if you are in a place where there are no chemicals, etc. that would produce smoke without fire.


No, that is not what you were talking about. Ultimately, you were talking about the relation between a conditional, its contrapositive, and its converse, and you were wrong about that.


This is an example to describe the power of inference.


Actually, with the way you modified the example just now (to include more and more information), that would illustrate not the power of inference, but the power of observation to rule out other causes of the smoke.


There is no question that if you understand the relation between fire and smoke you can infer the existence of fire from seeing smoke. In fact, I asked a 16 year old today and it was obvious to him.


Then neither you nor the 16 year old understands logic.


You can not negate the everyday world.


I'm not trying to. You are. Hurkyl and I already gave you an example of the existence of smoke without the corresponding existence of fire.


I think behind your thinking is a desire to find some kind of basis, which is exists independent of anything else, on which to establish the truth of a statement. A so called inherent refernce frame against which the truth or falsity of all statements can be measured against.


???

No, that is what is behind your thinking. I have always admitted that all (synthetic) truths are contingent on reference with the world. You, on the other hand, have been asserting exactly what you describe above: That you can use "logic" to determine truths independent of anything except that logic.


edit: fixed a typo

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Second, I acknowledged that there are cases where there is smoke but no fire. What I am talking about is if you are in a place where there are no chemicals, etc. that would produce smoke without fire. This is an example to describe the power of inference.


Can't you even see that this changes the argument completely???

You went from:

If there is smoke, then there is fire.
There is smoke.

Therefore there is fire.

To:

If there is smoke, then there is fire or smoke-producing materials.
There is smoke.
There are no smoke-producing materials.

Therefore, there is fire.

In the second argument, you have assumed that there is nothing other than fire that can produce smoke on the mountain. Then, under that assumption, when you see smoke, you conclude that there is fire.

Well, duh!


edit: fixed an error

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[quote]It's [i]usually true, but you'll make mistakes if you try to assume it is always true.This is exactly what I said.

You also brought up the issue of illusions and mistakes; when you think you see smoke, but are wrong, your inference is likely to make a mistake too.One of the conditions of understanding the statement On the hill fire exists because there is smoke on the hill is that you perceive smoke. If you perceive smoke it means that the mind perceiving the object and the object are in comformity. So, if you see an illusion and think it is smoke you have not perceived smoke so yes the inference would not be valid.

So it seems that if you want to increase your knowledge of the universe, you need to identify when general rules (like "when there's smoke, there's fire") fail to be true, and to recognize when you're faced with an illusion or an otherwise mistaken perception... I did. I said in the case where you are in a location where the only cause of smoke can be fire. Say in the mountains. I did not say this is a universal pervasion.

It is an illustrative example of the power of inference to determine the existence of something from the perception of another. The reason being they share a cause and effect relationship.

[protonman]

Look Tom you have left the realm of the everyday world. I asked a kid today and it was obvious to him.

What you are seeking is a nature of an object that exists independent of its parts.

A cup is a cup because it fits the accepted definition of a cup. How else would you define a cup?

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So, what you're saying is, "if there's nothing that can produce smoke without fire, then if we see smoke we can infer there must be fire." [:D]


Ok, back to seriousness. The point you were missing is that we were using this same example to demonstrate the weakness of inference.

It's usually true, but you'll make mistakes if you try to assume it is always true.

You also brought up the issue of illusions and mistakes; when you think you see smoke, but are wrong, your inference is likely to make a mistake too.


So it seems that if you want to increase your knowledge of the universe, you need to identify when general rules (like "when there's smoke, there's fire") fail to be true, and to recognize when you're faced with an illusion or an otherwise mistaken perception...

i beleive three-valued logic is the key. it is easy to discern when something is, something may be, and when something is not, is it not?

[Tom Mattson]

What a weak response.

Originally posted by protonman
Look Tom you have left the realm of the everyday world. I asked a kid today and it was obvious to him.


Actually, I'm still right here in the everyday world. I have cited real counterexamples of your assertions.

It is you who is in la-la land.


What you are seeking is a nature of an object that exists independent of its parts.


That has nothing to do with this.


A cup is a cup because it fits the accepted definition of a cup. How else would you define a cup?


Can you--just once--please address the points I made, instead of the points I didn't make?

[Tom Mattson]

Protonman,

There have been many questions and counterarguments put to you that you have completely ignored. Furthermore, you just keep repeating the same points over and over again that have already been rebutted.

If you don't start answering some of those points, then this thread is going to go the way of all your other threads: It will be locked.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Protonman,

There have been many questions and counterarguments put to you that you have completely ignored. Furthermore, you just keep repeating the same points over and over again that have already been rebutted.

If you don't start answering some of those points, then this thread is going to go the way of all your other threads: It will be locked. Ask away.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Ask away.

It has already been done.

The great thing about this medium of communication is that the entire discussion has been recorded. Go back through it and find all the questions and counterarguments that you refused to answer (or those that you answered with nothing other than, "You're stupid" or "You aren't qualified to take part in this discussion".)

If you won't (or can't?) answer them on logical terms, then this thread is finished.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
Look Tom you have left the realm of the everyday world. I asked a kid today and it was obvious to him.

What you are seeking is a nature of an object that exists independent of its parts.

A cup is a cup because it fits the accepted definition of a cup. How else would you define a cup? But isn't the most interesting part of physics today to do with that which is beyond 'the realm of the everyday world'?

For example, where are cups, fire, smoke, mountains, cars, chatbots, Tom, protonman, etc in the recent Hubble UDF image (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/)? In Young's two-slit experiment (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html)? In solar neutrinos (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html)?

[Hurkyl]

So, if you see an illusion and think it is smoke you have not perceived smoke so yes the inference would not be valid.

So, it would logically follow that we should be interested in seeking a way of verifying that our perceptions are accurate, would it not?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
For example, where are cups, fire, smoke, mountains, cars, chatbots, Tom, protonman, etc in the recent Hubble UDF image (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/)? In Young's two-slit experiment (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/twoslitsa.html)? In solar neutrinos (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html)? What do you mean?

[phoenixthoth]

i see a prism, a many sided wall. push through it, yall, and come to an agreement.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
What do you mean? Nereid: "How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here (http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/) is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?"

protonman (Nereid's emphasis): "How do you know your car is your car? Because you remember that it is yours and you paid for it. Understanding smoke is not profound. If you know what smoke is you see it and from your memory you know it is smoke. You have a valid perception of it. If someone saw that image you showed and thought it was smoke they would be wrong because it is not smoke. This is what I have been saying all along. A valid perception is valid because the way it understands an object and the way the objects exists are in conformity."

What are the objects in the HUDF image, the Young two-slit experiment, the Super-Kamiokande image? Please explain how the conformity between 'the way the objects exist' and the understanding of the perception (of the object) is validated.

[protonman]

Please explain how the conformity between 'the way the objects exist' and the understanding of the perception (of the object) is validated.This question can not be answered in general. We need to look at specific cases.

How do you know your car is a car? Well you see it and in accordance with the definition of what a car is you understand it as a car.

If you see a man with long hair and think it is a woman this is not a valid perception. The way you know this is because you understand the what a woman is.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
This question can not be answered in general. We need to look at specific cases.

How do you know your car is a car? Well you see it and in accordance with the definition of what a car is you understand it as a car.

If you see a man with long hair and think it is a woman this is not a valid perception. The way you know this is because you understand the what a woman is. This is weak logic, isn't it? How do you know that your definition of "car" is right? How do you know that you aren't mistaking a man for a woman?

[protonman]

This is a general address to those interested. I am not responding directly or indirectly to Zero.

The definition of a car is what is understood by people on the everyday level.

You see a person far away with long hair think it is a woman. When the person gets closer you realize it is a woman. If you don't know what a woman is that is your problem. If you still are not convinced maybe you should look for a snatch.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
This question can not be answered in general. We need to look at specific cases.

How do you know your car is a car? Well you see it and in accordance with the definition of what a car is you understand it as a car.

If you see a man with long hair and think it is a woman this is not a valid perception. The way you know this is because you understand the what a woman is. Please explain how the conformity between 'the way the objects exist' and the understanding of the perception (of the object) is validated. I am interested in objects in the links I posted. For the purpose of avoiding general answers, let's take one of the objects in the HUDF image. To avoid choosing an object which may prove unsuitable for the purposes of clarity of explanation, please protonman, you choose the object.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
This is a general address to those interested. I am not responding directly or indirectly to Zero.

The definition of a car is what is understood by people on the everyday level.

You see a person far away with long hair think it is a woman. When the person gets closer you realize it is a woman. If you don't know what a woman is that is your problem. If you still are not convinced maybe you should look for a snatch. Whoa....
did you just say what I think you said?!?

[protonman]

For the purpose of avoiding general answers, let's take one of the objects in the HUDF image. To avoid choosing an object which may prove unsuitable for the purposes of clarity of explanation, please protonman, you choose the object.Although it is not outer space but a picture of outerspace, I see outerspace in the picture. Since I know what outer space is my perception of what is in the picture and the reality of what is in the picture are in conformity.

[protonman]

Obviously there was a typo.

You see a person far away with long hair think it is a woman. When the person gets closer you realize it is a man. If you don't know what a woman is that is your problem. If you still are not convinced maybe you should look for a snatch.

Zero is a joke. He is not serious.

[phoenixthoth]

*pause

my friend marc was telling me about cartesian circles. i think this is one.

http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/PHRU1000/Ccircle.htm

there is a new effect i'd like to propose called the ripple effect. note how changes in tone effected the course of this thread. that's the ripple effect in effect, to the max, and in deed.

if you're a tenacious D fan, this is like the tribute to the greatest thread on this board, which is yet to come. but right now, this is my favorite thread on this board.

*unpause


did you feel that "wrinkle in time?"

oh, time, that's a can of worms. i think time is an illusion that can be controlled by your minds. call me Neo if you will, but i think we live in a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a ... well, you get the idea.

the rabbit hole never ends, alice.

woah, dude! when i scroll up and down on the page, that makes it look like a borg cube. why are we trying to assimilate others into our way of thinking when we should be open to their way of thinking as well?

and that brings me back to nash's equilibrium theory. i think it should be a code of ethics as well: do what's best for yourself and the group, dude.

carry on.

admiral out.

[Zero]

You know...someone here claimed to be a physics teacher and a student of Buddha...that someone shows traits of neither. Name-calling, vulgarity, anger, illogic....

Hey, Greg, Tom, somebody lock this crazy thing?

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
No it is true because I am interested in serious conversation while Zero is not. So that explains the name-calling and vulgarity?

Dude, there are pages upon pages of posts refuting your ability to conduct an actual conversation.

Answer a question, if you want to be taken seriously: is human perception always accurate?

[phoenixthoth]

hellz, no! not in my opinion. that's blind faith. i believe zero has the best of intentions.

[Tom Mattson]

I believe we are done here.