What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i can appreciate those sentiments, zero.

The only use of a thread like this is for me to clarify my own thinking and discussion skills...and it seems to be working rather well, don't you think?

For instance, protonman has been attacking a strawman, IMO. No scientist makes statements about a theory's absolute truth. Since that is the case, protonman's general position, "science cannot claim that QM is true" is a strawman, since science doesn't make that claim. What he would like to do, it seems, is claim that QM is invalid, without presenting anything to replace it. Since he hasn't presented a counter-theory, and concedes that QM makes accurate predictions, there is no logical reason for him to continue to attack QM, especially on the tenuous ground which he has chosen.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"The only use of a thread like this is for me to clarify my own thinking and discussion skills...and it seems to be working rather well, don't you think?"

yes, indeed, i would like to think so.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it.

So far it has been quite a lousy attack.

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

You would need to prove this. Not only that, but you would definitely need to quote in detail what you mean here by "perceive", "object" and "exists", since your assertion cannot hold for the common notion of perception.

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.

Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

If something is permenent and suddenly becomes permanent then you have a cause that arrises on its own.

I guess you meant "non-permanent" in the fist one. Didn't you?

If so...

Unjustified assumption #2:
"the character of 'being a cause' arises with 'permanency'"

Unjustified assumption #3:
"Dynamical evolution of a system cannot render it permanent"

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.

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. [/B]

Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit]

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by ahrkron
So far it has been quite a lousy attack.

ad hominem.



You would need to prove this. Not only that, but you would definitely need to quote in detail what you mean here by "perceive", "object" and "exists", since your assertion cannot hold for the common notion of perception.

why?

Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

so what if it's unjustified? aren't all axioms unjustified?

I guess you meant "non-permanent" in the fist one. Didn't you?

If so...

Unjustified assumption #2:
"the character of 'being a cause' arises with 'permanency'"

Unjustified assumption #3:
"Dynamical evolution of a system cannot render it permanent"

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.



Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit]

i like the counterexample attempt, lousy as it is.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

By definition that which is impermanent is changeing every instant.

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.

A permanent phenomena is an existent phenomena that does not change instantaneously.

Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

If you accept that permanent phenomena can produce an effect you accept that a result can arise without a cause. IF this is so then you must explain why flowers do not arise in the sky suddenly or horns do not suddenly grow from my head. In other words, why is there a law of cause and effect.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit] [/B]

No cauality can never be violated in the physical world, by definition. All these ideas about time travel and string theory are mistaken. By definition a cause must preceed its result.

Look, I told you that I don't accept QM or anything after it. Why do you keep bringing it up. My arguments appeal to reality, the world and experience. This is the only thing we agree upon.

It is really frustrating talking to people who are so dense. You don't understand what I am saying so instead of asking you just come up with some pathetic attempt to refute it. Do you know how long I have been thinking over these concepts. For over 7 years I have been contemplating the meaning of impermanence and I still don't understand it that well. People spend their entire lives trying to understand this idea. It is extremely difficult to grasp. I have been contemplating physics since I was in high school. These ideas I have are the result of an intense amount of study. More importantly though I had teachers who understood what it means to think. Today there are very few great thinkers left. Even in your field, people like Einstein and Newton would be laughing at your work. Read the principa it is full of definitions. Read Einstein and you understand that his insights were based on logic and reasoning. He was one of the last great physicists because he knew how to think.

 

[phoenixthoth]

[zz)] [zz)] [zz)]

 

[Zero]

What we're probably all thinking right now is that instead of "contemplating" physics, you probably should have attempted to study it. That way, you might have some idea of what you are talking about.

 

[phoenixthoth]

hey, maybe you should be a PF mentor. oh yeah, you already are. (hint, hint)

homework is good.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
By definition that which is impermanent is changeing every instant.

That being the case, and given your assertion that "if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent", you still need to prove that:
1. nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time; and
2. The vase is one of those.

If you accept that permanent phenomena can produce an effect you accept that a result can arise without a cause.

Just to make sure, do you mean here "permanent" or "impermanent".

IF this is so then you must explain why flowers do not arise in the sky suddenly or horns do not suddenly grow from my head. In other words, why is there a law of cause and effect.

Let me rephrase what I said: assume for a moment that causality does not hold in all circumstances (forget about QM), this in itself does not imply that the universe would do every possible odd thing you can think of.

A simple example: we could perfectly imagin a world in which the result of coin-drops were acausal events (i.e., "really" random). That does not imply that elephants would fly in that world.

No cauality can never be violated in the physical world, by definition.

This is an issue in which you cannot make things to be as you wish "by definition". Unless of course, you have a different definition for "causality", "violated", "physical" or "world".

Causality is, in the end, the name of a feature that we observe on the behavior of the world, and it being violated or not can only be judged on the base of observation.

All these ideas about time travel and string theory are mistaken.

Probably, but I'm still eager to read your arguments to justify such a statement.

Look, I told you that I don't accept QM or anything after it. Why do you keep bringing it up.

I used it on its role as a formal system in which macroscopic causality can arise even when microscopically it is violated, to show that your argument was flawed (since it assumed that once causality is violated in the least, flowers should grow in the air).

As a more formal (and general) rebuttal, you can do a google search for "paraconsistent logic". On it, mutually inconsistent premises exist in a system that, nonetheless, is non trivial, in the sense that not all statements are provable in the system.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
My arguments appeal to reality, the world and experience. This is the only thing we agree upon.

The problem I see, and I think others do as well, with your position, is that it seems to stem from common sense positions about what reality "should" be like, including the unjustified extrapolation of what it does in the everyday-life size and energy scales to atomic and astronomic scales.

I don't doubt that you have studied Buddhist concepts in depth, but when you claim to have found mistakes in the way modern science interprets its data (and especially if you attempt to use a buddhist framework to straighten up their analysis), you need to do a proper translation of concepts between the two disciplines. Otherwise, no matter how deep the buddhist concept of dependence may be, it cannot yield any conclusion about the measurable concept of probability (and statistical independence, for instance).

It is really frustrating talking to people who are so dense.

We are not trying to be; but you need to concede that you have not made a great role explaining your method.

You don't understand what I am saying so instead of asking you just come up with some pathetic attempt to refute it.

Show were such attempt goes wrong then, and I'll tell you why I think it was ok.

Do you know how long I have been thinking over these concepts. For over 7 years I have been contemplating the meaning of impermanence and I still don't understand it that well. ...

Many people here have worked hard at understanding nature full time for longer than that. And believe me: being a scientist does mean that you do seriously care for understanding what you are doing. It is not just a matter of "plugging numbers" or "pushing buttons".

Please, spare us the talk about how difficult this is or for how long you have tried. Instead, try to show the fruits of that understanding in the form of well though arguments and flameless replies.

 

[protonman]

That being the case, and given your assertion that "if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent", you still need to prove that:
1. nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time; and
2. The vase is one of those.

In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest.

 

[cookiemonster]

Guess we should all just give up then.

cookiemonster

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest.

You are wrong again, my young friend. If you cannot trust your mind, then you cannot trust your mind to judge who is wiser than you and who is not. How can you trust what someone tells you, when you cannot even trust what your senses tell you?

Your "logic" negates itself rather neatly.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
You are wrong again, my young friend. If you cannot trust your mind, then you cannot trust your mind to judge who is wiser than you and who is not. How can you trust what someone tells you, when you cannot even trust what your senses tell you?

Your "logic" negates itself rather neatly.

I am not saying that you can not trust any minds. What I am saying is that there are certain phenomena which are evident to us such as cars, trees and people. These exist, no question. But there are more subtle levels of existence which are not directly accessable via the senses. Therefore we must rely on logic. For example, if we see smoke on a hill we can infer that there is fire. Although we can not see the fire we know it is there. This is a valid perception through inference.

 

[cookiemonster]

Which has what--nothing?--to do with Zero's point?

cookiemonster

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I am not saying that you can not trust any minds. What I am saying is that there are certain phenomena which are evident to us such as cars, trees and people. These exist, no question. But there are more subtle levels of existence which are not directly accessable via the senses. Therefore we must rely on logic. For example, if we see smoke on a hill we can infer that there is fire. Although we can not see the fire we know it is there. This is a valid perception through inference.

In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existence of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existence of things that have even less evidence to support their existence?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existence of anything at all.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existence of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existence of things that have even less evidence to support their existence?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existence of anything at all.

I'm not making anything up as I go along. Everything I have said is self-consistent. Furthermore, I said I do accept things like trees and cars. I do accept what is conventionally agreed upon by all. How can you say I don't accept anything when I said I accept the existence of smoke?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existence of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existence of things that have even less evidence to support their existence?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existence of anything at all.

You amaze me as well as everyone here. How can no one criticize you for your statements. You say I don't accept anything. But in the post above I say I accept trees and such, no question. I go on to say that certain phenomena are not accesable via the sense and therefore we must rely on logic. The atom is a perfect example. It is beyond the range of the senses.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I go on to say that certain phenomena are not accesable via the sense and therefore we must rely on logic. The atom is a perfect example. It is beyond the range of the senses.

So, you do accept the existence of the atom? (it is a serious question, please answer).

 

[phoenixthoth]

BURN!

well done! :P

i believe the atom both exists and it does not. that is not a paradox, it is just difficult to understand with your mind, unless you're canute or someone.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

I'm surprised nobody has picked up on this aspect of what you said:

One can understand the small through its relation to the large.

You have suggested that the modern physics of the small is invalid because it is dealing with things that are "beyond perception". However, we can infer about such things based on their interactions with things that aren't beyond perception.


And, incidentally, the reverse is just as important. We can infer about the large through its interactions with the small, which allows us to do, for instance, astronomy.

What is the difference between a point particle and a localized quantum field?

I'm probably wrong, but this is how I understand it:

The "average" of such a field behaves like we would expect a point particle to behave. Not exactly as such, but very similarly. For many problems, the difference is insignificant enough that it does not affect results, thus we can approximate them as point particles.


For a very simplistic analogy, imagine we have a very long string. We can wiggle the string which causes waves to form. These waves are carrying energy. If the waves are small enough, then their spatial extent may be irrelevant for the problems we're doing, and we can treat them as if we have created particles that are carrying energy instead of wiggling a string to produce a wave, which may greatly simplify whatever we were trying to calculate.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I'm not making anything up as I go along. Everything I have said is self-consistent. Furthermore, I said I do accept things like trees and cars. I do accept what is conventionally agreed upon by all. How can you say I don't accept anything when I said I accept the existence of smoke?

By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existence of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existence of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existence of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existence of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along.

When I refute QM in reality I am establishing the everyday world. QM refutes cause and effect which is in direct contradition of the conventional world. If there is no law of cause and effect than every day objects such as trees and cars could not exist.

The reason being is that these things arise in dependence on causes that are different from themselves. A seed planted in the ground produces a plant. There is a direct cause and effect relationship. It is impossible for a tree to produce it's own seed. If this were the case it would be pointless to talk about any kind of order in the world. But there obviously is as anyone can see.

The reality of everyday objects should never even come into question. A vase exists because we can use it to drink from. It performs a function that is in accordance with its definition. Your analysis is falling into the two extremes. One which states nothing exists and the other which states that things exist inherently or untimately; that is independent of anything else.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
By the "logic" you have used to reject QM, you cannot logically accept the existence of anything at all. The funny part is that other people can see the logical conclusion of your statements, but you can't. It is a little sad, frankly, but the point is that based on your own statements, when you decide to accept the existence of trees, it is a subjective decision, and you are really "making up" your standard of acceptance as you go along.

Further more by rejecting QM I am not rejecting the existence of electrons, atoms, etc. QM is a mechanics that attempts to describe the physical behavior of particles. It is not a theory of what exists. In reality all of physics is nothing more than a model. It is subject to the constraints of the mathematics used to describe it. For example, all the problems with infinities and sigularities arise are a result of the attempt to present a mathematical picture of reality. Math and physics can approximate the quantitative nature of reality but offer no conclusive statements on the untimate nature of the phenomena they seek to describe.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
When I refute QM in reality I am establishing the everyday world. QM refutes cause and effect which is in direct contradition of the conventional world. If there is no law of cause and effect than every day objects such as trees and cars could not exist.

The reason being is that these things arise in dependence on causes that are different from themselves. A seed planted in the ground produces a plant. There is a direct cause and effect relationship. It is impossible for a tree to produce it's own seed. If this were the case it would be pointless to talk about any kind of order in the world. But there obviously is as anyone can see.

The reality of everyday objects should never even come into question. A vase exists because we can use it to drink from. It performs a function that is in accordance with its definition. Your analysis is falling into the two extremes. One which states nothing exists and the other which states that things exist inherently or untimately; that is independent of anything else.

I think it is interesting that your "philosophy" is even incoherent to yourself. You have already rejected human perception as being flawed. Therefore you reject all existence at any level, because human perception of marcoscopic things is also flawed.

You are the one who wants to use a double standard, not me.


Also, the statement "A vase exists because we can use it to drink from." is again unfounded by any reasoning or logic. You cannot simply make statements without showing supporting evidence or logic.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is interesting that your "philosophy" is even incoherent to yourself. You have already rejected human perception as being flawed. Therefore you reject all existence at any level, because human perception of marcoscopic things is also flawed.

You are the one who wants to use a double standard, not me.

I said in that not all perception is valid. I did not say that all perception is invalid. Perception, as I explained it, refers to the senses not to all minds. In particular sight. The level of atoms and particles is beyond the scope of the senses. You need to understand this very important point. The rejection of perception only applies to a certain scale.

Also, the statement "A vase exists because we can use it to drink from." is again unfounded by any reasoning or logic. You cannot simply make statements without showing supporting evidence or logic.

That is the evidence. That is the reason. The questions you are asking are indicative of what I said. You are looking for some inherent reason to establish something. The logic goes like this. A vase exists because it functions in accordance with its definition. Your qualification for existence is some kind of meta-physical overly complex idea. The reality of the conventional world is simply that all people agree on something being a vase, give it a definition and accept it. There is nothing more.

 

[Zero]

You don't understand Physics, Buddhism, or Logic...is there anything you do understand, and does Physics Forums have an area for you to post that understanding in? Shall we create a Sports forum for you, maybe?

You have chosen to pick and choose which perceptions are valid and which are not. That arbitrary and subjective choice renders your philosophy incoherent and inconsistant.

You still continue to make unfounded statements and label them as "logic". You need to study logic some more, and come back and try again when you are done. I mean, in your last post you listed your unfounded assertion as both evidence and reason...the rules of both common sense and logic don't allow you to do that.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
You don't understand Physics, Buddhism, or Logic...is there anything you do understand, and does Physics Forums have an area for you to post that understanding in? Shall we create a Sports forum for you, maybe?

What do you know about Buddhism that qualifies you to make this statement?

You have chosen to pick and choose which perceptions are valid and which are not.

Prove it.

You still continue to make unfounded statements and label them as "logic". You need to study logic some more, and come back and try again when you are done. I mean, in your last post you listed your unfounded assertion as both evidence and reason...the rules of both common sense and logic don't allow you to do that.

Have you studied Buddhist logic?

 

[Zero]

I'm not a Buddhist, I've made no claims to have studied Buddhism in any meaningful way. You have made that claim, and have consistantly refused to back up that claim, as well as every other claim you have made. Assertion after assertion after assertion, and not even a smidgen of supporting information of any kind.

Are you claiming that Buddhist "logic" allows you to make unfounded assertions and call them evidence? If so, can we see what Buddhist book, what Buddhist philosopher makes the same claims as you do, in the same way? You claim(occasionally, inconsistantly, and as you feel like it) that your thought are based on Buddhism. All we have is your word on that, though.

I've debated Christians on this board, for instance, and while I don't agree with a single thing they say regarding the Bible and physics, at least they have quotations from the Bible or from Christian philosophers that at least back up the idea that their ideas are based on Christianity.

You have refused time and again to show that your thoughts and Buddhist philosophy are in line with each other. We are therefore forced to believe that you know as little about Buddhism as you do about physics, which is next-to-nothing.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm not a Buddhist, I've made no claims to have studied Buddhism in any meaningful way. You have made that claim, and have consistantly refused to back up that claim, as well as every other claim you have made. Assertion after assertion after assertion, and not even a smidgen of supporting information of any kind.

If you haven't studied Buddhism how can you say I know nothing about it?

Are you claiming that Buddhist "logic" allows you to make unfounded assertions and call them evidence? If so, can we see what Buddhist book, what Buddhist philosopher makes the same claims as you do, in the same way? You claim(occasionally, inconsistantly, and as you feel like it) that your thought are based on Buddhism. All we have is your word on that, though.

If you haven't studied Buddhism you would not be able to distinguish between what I say and what is being quoted.

I've debated Christians on this board, for instance, and while I don't agree with a single thing they say regarding the Bible and physics, at least they have quotations from the Bible or from Christian philosophers that at least back up the idea that their ideas are based on Christianity.

You have refused time and again to show that your thoughts and Buddhist philosophy are in line with each other. We are therefore forced to believe that you know as little about Buddhism as you do about physics, which is next-to-nothing.

I am not sure what you idea of a proof would be. I can quote texts all day but if you have not studied them how can you accept them? This is not the mark of a scholar.

What is more important is the logical consistency of the argument, not the ability to quote sources you don't accept. This is the point I have made over and over again.

I can give you definitions from texts and in accordance with these definitions my logic is perfect. Again my statement from before:

A vase exists because it can perform a function.

If you knew how to pursue a logical argument instead of saying my logic is inconsistent you would pick apart this particular argument.