What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.