What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[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.

 

[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 that's 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 that's ok - even though it's incomplete, it's still a useful theory. And that's 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, that's when problems, such as the ones seen on this board, arise.

If you want to discuss science from a scientific point of view, that's why this board exists. If you want to discuss scicence from a philosophical point of view, that's 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 that's 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 that's ok - even though it's incomplete, it's still a useful theory. And that's 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, that's when problems, such as the ones seen on this board, arise.

If you want to discuss science from a scientific point of view, that's why this board exists. If you want to discuss scicence from a philosophical point of view, that's 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 that's 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 amount 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.

 

[quantumdude]

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[/color]. 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[/color].

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"?[/color]

 

[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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.