What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter protonman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Ontology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limits of logical arguments in ontology, particularly focusing on the nature of existence and the validity of different philosophical and scientific perspectives. Participants explore the implications of knowing what exists a priori versus a posteriori, and the relationship between classical and quantum theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that ontology is fundamentally about what exists and can only be known a posteriori, while others challenge this view, suggesting that some concepts can be understood a priori.
  • There is a contention regarding the application of classical logic to quantum mechanics, with some asserting that classical laws do not adequately explain quantum phenomena.
  • Participants discuss the validity of various theories, including quantum field theory and string theory, with some claiming these theories contain fundamental flaws and do not correspond to reality.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of understanding logic in its broader context, including Eastern perspectives such as Buddhist logic, which they argue is overlooked in the discussion.
  • There are disagreements about the nature of causal relationships in physics, with some participants questioning the clarity and relevance of the questions posed by others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of ontology, the validity of different logical frameworks, and the relationship between classical and quantum theories. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached on these issues.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include differing interpretations of key terms such as "logical" and "ontology," as well as unresolved questions regarding the relationship between theoretical models and empirical evidence.

  • #241
*pause

my friend marc was telling me about cartesian circles. i think this is one.

http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/PHRU1000/Ccircle.htm

there is a new effect i'd like to propose called the ripple effect. note how changes in tone effected the course of this thread. that's the ripple effect in effect, to the max, and in deed.

if you're a tenacious D fan, this is like the tribute to the greatest thread on this board, which is yet to come. but right now, this is my favorite thread on this board.

*unpause


did you feel that "wrinkle in time?"

oh, time, that's a can of worms. i think time is an illusion that can be controlled by your minds. call me Neo if you will, but i think we live in a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a a computer simulation within a ... well, you get the idea.

the rabbit hole never ends, alice.

woah, dude! when i scroll up and down on the page, that makes it look like a borg cube. why are we trying to assimilate others into our way of thinking when we should be open to their way of thinking as well?

and that brings me back to nash's equilibrium theory. i think it should be a code of ethics as well: do what's best for yourself and the group, dude.

carry on.

admiral out.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242
You know...someone here claimed to be a physics teacher and a student of Buddha...that someone shows traits of neither. Name-calling, vulgarity, anger, illogic...

Hey, Greg, Tom, somebody lock this crazy thing?
 
  • #243
Originally posted by protonman
No it is true because I am interested in serious conversation while Zero is not.
So that explains the name-calling and vulgarity?

Dude, there are pages upon pages of posts refuting your ability to conduct an actual conversation.

Answer a question, if you want to be taken seriously: is human perception always accurate?
 
  • #244
hellz, no! not in my opinion. that's blind faith. i believe zero has the best of intentions.
 
  • #245
I believe we are done here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 198 ·
7
Replies
198
Views
15K
  • · Replies 147 ·
5
Replies
147
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 204 ·
7
Replies
204
Views
13K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K