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
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the limitations of logical arguments in ontology, particularly contrasting classical logic with Eastern logic, specifically Buddhist logic. Participants debate the nature of existence, emphasizing that ontology is the study of what exists and can be understood a posteriori. Key points include the critique of quantum mechanics (QM) and its interpretations, with references to string field theories and the philosophical implications of these scientific theories. The conversation highlights the necessity of understanding different logical frameworks to engage meaningfully in discussions about reality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ontology and its implications in philosophy.
  • Familiarity with classical logic and its limitations.
  • Basic knowledge of quantum mechanics and string theory.
  • Awareness of Eastern philosophical concepts, particularly Buddhist logic.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of Buddhist logic as developed by Dignaga and Dharmakirti.
  • Explore the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics and its critiques.
  • Study the differences between classical and quantum physics in explaining reality.
  • Investigate the relationship between ontology and epistemology in philosophical discourse.
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, and students of Eastern philosophy who seek to understand the intersection of logic, ontology, and the implications of quantum theories on our understanding of reality.

  • #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
14K
  • · Replies 147 ·
5
Replies
147
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 204 ·
7
Replies
204
Views
12K
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