Why are the arguments 'terrible'?protonman: First of all your arguments are terrible *SNIP
I already told you I am not going into detail on everything you wrote. I explained why the first argument was wrong. As far as I am concerned if your first argument is not correct the rest are not worth going into. I will explain why each of your points are wrong but one at a time. First you need to understand why the first point is wrong then we can proceed.Originally posted by Nereid
Why are the arguments 'terrible'?
Thank you for the reply.Originally posted by protonman
I already told you I am not going into detail on everything you [sic] wrote. I explained why the first argument was wrong. As far as I am concerned if your [sic] first argument is not correct the rest are not worth going into. I will explain why each of your points are wrong but one at a time. First you need to understand why the first point is wrong then we can proceed.
Originally posted by protonboy
Again you are taking my view of logic and saying that it is not the logic employed in science. That is fine. We are not discussing your version of logic. We are discussing logic itself.
What you don't understand is pervasive logic. Pervasive logic is as true as it was 10,000 years ago is it is today.
For example, all physical phenomena are impermanent. This is something that will never change. It is pervasive knowledge based on a relationship that is not going to change in 100 or 1000 years. It is based on a perfect reason and therefore will not change in the future.
Originally posted by protonboy
OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?
Originally posted by protonboy
Tom: You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.
protonboy: This is typical of what I have been saying all along. You can't make your own case based on your logic.
I don't care what Kant thinks. I don't accept Kant's views.
Originally posted by protonboy
Basically the argument was that if experiment and observation are based on perception how do you know perception is valid.
If you find it is not then the scientific method can no longer be considered a source of valid knowledge on the world.
If you do establish that perception is valid via the scientific method then you would have used perception to prove perception is valid which is obviously a circular argument where you are taking what you are questioning as a true condition in order to question that very thing you already axiomatically assumed was true.
First off you can't beat me and I am not just saying that to be a jerk. It is true.1. The truth values of statements cannot be determined without induction (and therefore they cannot be determined without experimentation).
2. The universe is not known a priori. [/B]
Regardless. By definition something can not be both a wave and a particle.Originally posted by Tom
"the bomb?"
You are funny, I'll give you that.
Originally posted by protonman
First off you can't beat me and I am not just saying that to be a jerk. It is true.
Second according to philosophypages.com we have the following:In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. What I am talking about is certainty which would imply deductive logic.
How do you know I haven't. I have studied physics and from what I am reading here I have thought about it more than most of you. I may not be as skilled at towing the party line and not really thinking about what is going on, I will give you that, but I have certainly thought about these things.Originally posted by Tom
1. I already have made my case based on logic. You ignored it.
2. Kant's case is also based on logic.
3. Since when is it a bad thing to recommend that someone needs to learn something (as you clearly do!)?
Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds when you say that you do not accept a point of view, without ever having read the argument in support of it?
Originally posted by protonman
Regardless. By definition something can not be both a wave and a particle.
I don't give a hoot if you teach anything. Lots of teachers are wrong. What the hell does truth value mean anyway?I don't need the little lesson from philosophypages.com. I teach courses in this subject. Also, you have completely failed to address my argument, which states that deduction cannot determine the truth value of a statement. [/B]
Originally posted by protonman
How do you know I haven't.
I have studied physics and from what I am reading here I have thought about it more than most of you.
I may not be as skilled at towing the party line and not really thinking about what is going on, I will give you that, but I have certainly thought about these things.
Originally posted by protonman
I don't give a hoot if you teach anything. Lots of teachers are wrong.
What the hell does truth value mean anyway?
Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it. There is so much more existent objects than just the physical. Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it. Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world. In fact, the idea of the atom dates back before the Greeks to Hinduism. What you people need to do is get some exposure to other method of understanding. The techniques and findings of Buddhist meditators have been tested and tested over and over again for thousands of years. If you study the texts you will see that exactl as the experience is described it can be realized. This is real science. This is real experiment. In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent. That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.Originally posted by Tom
Here is my full argument against pure reason as a scientific method. I am copying it directly from the thread Pragmatism Morphed into a Reasoning System
Here is my argument supporting my position that pure reasoning can only reveal things about abstract forms, and not about reality.
From FZ's topic The limits of reason
First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.
Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).
All systems of logic can be put into one of two categories:
1. Deductive
2. Inductive
I explained all this in detail in my Logic Notes thread, but let me give a rundown here.
Deductive Logic
An argument is deductive if its premises necessarily imply its conclusions. With a mandate to construct such a system of logic, one is led directly to a formal structural language that strongly resembles mathematics. It contains rules for types of inferences that can always be trusted. This should not be misunderstood to mean that deductive logic can be used to derive absolute truths about reality. In fact, deductive logic is completely silent in this regard. It should be understood as follows:
I may not know whether the premises are correct, but I do know for certain that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
That conditional statement expresses the only idea of which we can be confident using only deductive logic. Deductive logic does not contain a procedure for testing the truth or falsity of propositions (except for some propositions about deductive logic, of course).
Inductive Logic
An argument that is not deductively valid is inductive. The premises of an inductive argument provide only partial support for its conclusion, and as such the conclusions of inductive arguments are accepted only tentatively. This may prompt one to ask, "Why bother with inductive logic?" Good question. The answer is that it is impossible to reason about anything that cannot be known a priori without inductive logic. So, the price we pay for inductive reasoning may be the lack of absolute support for the conclusion, but the benefit is that we obtain the ability to say something meaningful about reality. In other words, inductive logic provides a means to judge the truth or falsity of propositions, but only in a probable (as opposed to absolute) sense.
The discipline of implementing these two kinds of reasoning to learn about reality is called science.
Continuing:
If truths about reality are destinations, then deductive reasoning is the car that gets you from one to the other. The initial post of the thread boils down to: How far can that car get us?
Is there some limit to the understanding that logic alone can provide? I have answered that question emphatically in the affirmative, on the following grounds:
We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.
The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).
The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.
Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.
Originally posted by protonman
Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it.
There is so much more existent objects than just the physical.
Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it.
Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world.
In fact, the idea of the atom dates back before the Greeks to Hinduism. What you people need to do is get some exposure to other method of understanding.
This is real science. This is real experiment.
In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent.
That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.
In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception.
This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.
Really? I thought this was about science, not navel-gazing...silly me, huh?Originally posted by protonman
You need to study Buddhist philosophy.
You only examine the physical world.quote:Originally posted by protonman
Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it.
Mind.There is so much more existent objects than just the physical. Prove it.
They only investigate the physical world.Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it. Prove it (using logic, please).
Well you don't really know much about Indian philosophy. Buddhism and Hinduism both have extensive explanations of the physical world as indicated below in my statement about their idea of atoms originating with the Hindus. In addition, modern science does not understand the relation between the mind and the external worldConsider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world.
No protonboy, they were investigating their own minds. To "investigate the world" implies going out and observing the world. Medidation and introspection won't cut it.
Again I call attention to your lack of understanding of the relation between the mind and external reality. What you believe in is an objective existence of an external reality which is logically impossible.This is real science. This is real experiment.
No, real science and real experiments are about observing the world without, not the world within.
No I am not changing my tune. What I am saying is that your methods of experiment can not be confirmed because you do not support them with pervasive logic. If you have a perfect reason backing your experience you can establish it as true.In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent.
LOL, I thought you said that theories cannot be confirmed experimentally. Changin' yer tune, protonboy?
Scientific theories do not enjoy the same status. They are continually being replaced every 50-100 years by a so called better theory. You can't explain why the speed of light is measured the same in all inertial reference frames. You can't explain why light is both a particle and a wave. This is total BS.That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.
Scientific theories enjoy the same status. In addition to that, they make precise quantitative predictions about the observable world, which no amount of pure introspection can do.
Well let me inform your of something. If you are using a machine to detect particles and looking at the traces in a bubble chamber you are not seeing the particles directly. Therefore, you are using reasoning to establish your theories.In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception.
Sure I do. I further understand that those limts are the reason we build precise instruments that are not subject to the same problems.
My case is that you don't even understand what I am talking about.This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.
Talk about hypocritical. When I referred you to Kant, you pointed it out as an example of people not being able to think for themselves (despite the fact that I had an argument of my own posted--which you ignored). I then pasted a more detailed argument in this thread, which you also ignored. Now, here you are, telling me to go and study something and you aren't even making a coherent case for it!
You seem to have a lot of bulit up anger.Come on, protonboy, don't just tell me I'm wrong, prove it.
Not at all. Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing. Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering? Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?Originally posted by Janitor
Does it bother you at all that the cultures of India, Nepal, Tibet, and China did not get humans to the moon centuries before the United States (which is overwhelmingly non-Buddhist) did? And I could ask similar questions about whether it was Buddhists or non-Buddhists who had the Right Stuff to design and build the first particle accelerator, the first telescope, the first television set, the first trans-ocean communications cable, the first compact disc, the first digital computer, and so on.
Originally posted by protonman ...
Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models.I asked you if a photon was wave or a particle. There are four answers wave, particle, both and neither. You said 'yes' eliminating the neither choice. I then asked which one was it and you said neither. So based on what you said initially, which eliminates neither, you then answer that it is in fact neither after you had already eliminated this choice.
What are you implying?Originally posted by Zero
Really? I thought this was about science, not navel-gazing...silly me, huh?
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.Originally posted by FZ+
Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models.
But your knowledge is nothing without them.Originally posted by Janitor
"Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing."
My point is that we non-Buddhists must have had something pretty powerful going on in our minds in order to design effective machines in the first place.
This is only a very gross form of suffering."Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering?"
Maybe I should have added to my list of devices some pharmaceuticals such as various painkillers, which I suspect were originally researched overwhelmingly by non-Buddhists. Or am I taking you too literally?
Because they realized it is more important to work on inner development."Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?"
Including knowing how to put a man on the moon? Then why didn't they do so a hundred or a thousand years ago?
Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone?Originally posted by protonman
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.
Because inference is more valid than perception.Originally posted by Zero
Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone?
How then do you account for the observations of material things (made of atoms), in the macro world, which behave in accord with QM, but not in accord with classical physics? Some examples (not all may be relevant, it depends on your viewpoint, which remains somewhat unclear to me):Originally posted by protonman
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.
That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid.Originally posted by Nereid
How then do you account for the observations of material things (made of atoms), in the macro world, which behave in accord with QM, but not in accord with classical physics? Some examples (not all may be relevant, it depends on your viewpoint, which remains somewhat unclear to me):
- http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm , both He4 and He3
- macroscopic quantum entanglement
- macroscopic effects observed in SQUIDs (there are surely better examples in this area, but this will do)
Wrong. QM, as far as we know, is the real world. What we observe macroscopically is a crude approximation of the beautiful action at the lowest scales. Even in our larger views, we use perception - there is no inference without perception.Because your views have no connection to the real world.
Q: Why does X happen?That is easy QM is wrong.
Really? And what are you infering from? Your perception...Originally posted by protonman
Because inference is more valid than perception.
Hmmm...possibly, but it DOES carry a higher validity than a worldview which DOESN't make accurate predictions.Originally posted by protonman
That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid.