What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[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.

 

[phoenixthoth]

this debate is futile.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
touche. ;P

but when will you guys ever learn.

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

What is the definition of a chat-bot?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Agreement is the seed of salvation.

 

[Zero]

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

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

Lots of assertions in this post...no reasoning or logic. You have to back up any assertion you make. You refuse to do so. Here, let me spell it out for you as clearly as possible. You make assertions, I'll quote them back to you; to back them up you will have to answer my questions.

Assertion:"your method of investigation is not valid"

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ahrkron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[protonman]

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

 

[Zero]

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

Another unfounded statement.

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

 

[quantumdude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit: fixed a typo

 

[quantumdude]

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

Zero: Another unfounded statement.

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

Exactly.

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

It is because you consistently refuse to explain yourself![/color]

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

 

[phoenixthoth]

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

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

 

[ahrkron]

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

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

 

[protonman]

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

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

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

 

[phoenixthoth]

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

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

 

[ahrkron]

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

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

 

[Zero]

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

Something to consider, since this is a philosophical thread:

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

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

 

[phoenixthoth]

i can appreciate those sentiments, zero.

 

[quantumdude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zero]

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

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



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

 

[quantumdude]

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

And that's another thing:

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

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

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

When is it going to stop?

 

[phoenixthoth]

when is it going to stop?

the way things are going, never.

can i make a suggestion? :P

agree to disagre for now.