What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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?

This comes from experience. Is the concept of velocity always in your mind? If not then it must arrise, abide and be destroyed.

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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, let's 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[/color] that do exhibit strict causal interactions[/color].

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[/color] and not independent of perception[/color]

 

[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[/color] that do exhibit strict causal interactions[/color].

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[/color] and not independent of perception[/color]

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.