You are showing the limitations of your understanding.
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).
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.
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.
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.
But you can't argue it! Newton's laws have nothing to say about the questions you are asking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
"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.
The electron exists, period. There is no need to partition "reality" up into our artificial categories.
Once again, classical physics provides no answers to the questions you are asking.
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?
The agreement with experiment is the correspondence with reality.
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.
Well, my question still stands then. What is Buddhist logic?
I never said I discount experimental evidence.
So velocity is a mind?
It is a system of logic developed by Dignaga and Dharmakirti used by Buddhists to understand the meaning of the texts and investigate reality.
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.
No, it is a concept, just like I said.
That doesn't do much in the way of clarification.
That's no answer. Why should that be considered wrong?
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?
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.
A concept is a mind.
Separate names with a comma.