- #1
protonman
- 285
- 0
You are showing the limitations of your understanding.But you are not arguing on "purely logical grounds". If you were, then your posts would look something like:
[p-->q]^(~q)-->~p
or some such like.
You are showing the limitations of your understanding.But you are not arguing on "purely logical grounds". If you were, then your posts would look something like:
[p-->q]^(~q)-->~p
or some such like.
Originally posted by protonman
Maybe we have different understanding of ontology. Basically ontology is the study of what exists. This is not a priori. We can know what exists a posteriori.
In addition, there are many refutations of QM in Buddhist literature.
The fact is if you can't argue this on classical grounds then you really don't understand it.
The reality of the small can not negate the reality of the large.
If you are not going to argue this way then then you might as well just leave the argument to those of us who can.
Originally posted by protonman
You are showing the limitations of your understanding.
The extent of your understanding of logic is limited by your view.Originally posted by Tom
I speak English. When you use English words such as "purely" and "logical", then I can only conclude that you are using those words with their English meaning.
If you mean something else, than say so.
Originally posted by protonman
The extent of your understanding of logic is limited by your view.
Ontology is the study of what exists. So a theory's ontological validity means that the theory explains reality as it exists.Then what do you mean by "ontology"? I agree that we can know what exists a posteriori (actually, I think that we can only know what exists in that way).
That is because the electron exits on the microscopic level. What I am talking about is being able to explain an object on the level it exists at.This is baseless conjecture, and easily refuted. For instance, no one can explain electron diffraction on classical grounds, but that does not mean that it is not well understood.
How many different ways are you planning on misspelling "causal"?Originally posted by protonman
This is exactly what I said.
I am asking is there a casual relationship between the forces A and B each exert on one another.
The same applies to quantum field theory and string theory. In fact, the same mistakes in QM the are explained by Buddhists are the ones being made in quantum field theories and string theories. It is all wrong from the get-go. Yes it may be a model whose application can make experimental predictions but the correspondence between theory and reality is non existent.There are refutations of it in scientific literature, too. That's how we come to the theory of quantized fields. And we also know that that description is not without its flaws, which leads us to consider string field theories. But the direction in which we are moving is decidedly towards the quantum, not away from it.
First I wouldn't speak for others. This is extreme arrogance. Second, all logic does not reduce to symbols like you have shown. Your understanding of logic ignores Eastern logic. In particular, Buddhist logic.Originally posted by Tom
Well, you're the one who claims to want to have a discussion on common ground. If you are serious about that, then you should explain what you mean by "logical", because I guarantee you that everyone else here has pretty much the same idea of it that I do.
Originally posted by protonman
Ontology is the study of what exists. So a theory's ontological validity means that the theory explains reality as it exists.
Now on the topic of only knowing what exits only a posteriori this is competely wrong. Simple example. Veocity is distance divided by time.
That is because the electron exits on the microscopic level.
What I am talking about is being able to explain an object on the level it exists at.
Sorry about the spelling mistakes. I guess when you have nothing intelligent left to say this is what you do.Originally posted by Zero
How many different ways are you planning on misspelling "causal"?
Your question doesn't even make sense. You agree that the speed and direction are have a causal relationship. What else is there?
Originally posted by protonman
The same applies to quantum field theory and string theory. In fact, the same mistakes in QM the are explained by Buddhists are the ones being made in quantum field theories and string theories. It is all wrong from the get-go.
Yes it may be a model whose application can make experimental predictions but the correspondence between theory and reality is non existent.
Originally posted by protonman
First I wouldn't speak for others. This is extreme arrogance.
Second, all logic does not reduce to symbols like you have shown. Your understanding of logic ignores Eastern logic. In particular, Buddhist logic.
I never said I discount experimental evidence.There has to be some a priori clause sneaking around in here, because you have already stated that you discount experimental evidence. So, without using experimental evidence and using a posteriori methods, how do you determine reality "as it exists".
So velocity is a mind?"Velocity" exists only as a concept. To clarify: I do not doubt that abstract objects (such as concepts, ideal forms, mathematical objects, etc) can be known a priori.
Partless particles.Originally posted by Tom
Why?
Newtonian physics.The agreement with experiment is the correspondence with reality.
It is a system of logic developed by Dignaga and Dharmakirti used by Buddhists to understand the meaning of the texts and investigate reality.Originally posted by Tom
Well, my question still stands then. What is Buddhist logic?
Originally posted by protonman
I never said I discount experimental evidence.
So velocity is a mind?
Originally posted by protonman
It is a system of logic developed by Dignaga and Dharmakirti used by Buddhists to understand the meaning of the texts and investigate reality.
Originally posted by protonman
protonman: It (edit: quantum theory) is all wrong from the get-go.
Tom: Why?
protonman: Partless particles.
Tom: The agreement with experiment is the correspondence with reality.
protonman: Newtonian physics.
What I discounted is experimental evidence where the objects under investigation are on the micro level. That is, the exist beyond the scope of our senses. I have no disagreement with droping a ball and determining it accelerates at 9.81 m/s^2.Originally posted by Tom
But discounting experimental evidence is what you are doing. You flat out said "QM is wrong", while acknowledging that it agrees so well with experiment. The reason you are resisting the introduction of quantum ideas into this discussion is directly related to the fact that you discount experimental evidence.
A concept is a mind.No, it is a concept, just like I said. [/B]
Originally posted by protonman
A concept is a mind.
Originally posted by protonman
What I discounted is experimental evidence where the objects under investigation are on the micro level. That is, the exist beyond the scope of our senses. I have no disagreement with droping a ball and determining it accelerates at 9.81 m/s^2.
Partless particles, meaning point particles as you know them, can not exist. If they did then there would be something that existed independent of its parts.Originally posted by Tom
That's no answer. Why should that be considered wrong?
No that according to your statements at the time when Newtonian physics made correct predictions of experiments it was a correct description of reality. If this is the case then the effects on length and time measurements due to high velocity did not exists at that time. Additionally, QM did not exist at that time.This is nonsensical. It would really help if you would answer in complete sentences. What am I supposed to get from this? That you believe that Newtonian physics corresponds to reality, based on experimental evidence?
Does a concept know something?Originally posted by Tom
No, conceiving is something that the mind does, in the same way as "walking is something that the legs do".
A concept is no more identical to a mind than a stroll is identical to a pair of legs.
]Originally posted by protonman
Does a concept know something?
So when you have the concept of velocity that concept does not know velocity?Originally posted by Tom
]
Of course not.
Originally posted by protonman
Partless particles, meaning point particles as you know them, can not exist. If they did then there would be something that existed independent of its parts.
No that according to your statements at the time when Newtonian physics made correct predictions of experiments it was a correct description of reality.
If this is the case then the effects on length and time measurements due to high velocity did not exists at that time.
Additionally, QM did not exist at that time.
Originally posted by protonman
So when you have the concept of velocity that concept does not know velocity?
Maybe to you.Originally posted by Tom
This makes no sense.
You said that a theory's agreement with experiment is its ontological correspondence. This is saying that if an theory makes correct experimental predictions it must correspond to reality as it exists. The comments that followed regarding SR and QM were meant to imply that by your view the reality described by SR and QM did not exist at the time of Newton because his theories were experimentally confirmed.It was as correct a description that anyone could have come up with. We can do better today.
OK you need to do some thinking here. Think of a vase. There is a mind that is grasping an object which is not the vase itself but an image of the particular vase. This mind is a conceptual mind because it does not grasp the object directly but does so through an image that is like the vase but not the vase.Originally posted by Tom
Correct. When I have the concept of velocity, I know velocity. Velocity doesn't know anything.
I would think that much is obvious.
Is that a problem? If so please move us to an appropriate location. Although this is an enjoyable conversation I don't want to cause any problems here.Originally posted by russ_watters
Heh, I was wondering where this thread was going to go... back to another philosophical, not scientific discussion.
Originally posted by protonman
Maybe to you.
You said that a theory's agreement with experiment is its ontological correspondence. This is saying that if an theory makes correct experimental predictions it must correspond to reality as it exists.
The comments that followed regarding SR and QM were meant to imply that by your view the reality described by SR and QM did not exist at the time of Newton because his theories were experimentally confirmed.
Originally posted by protonman
Velocity can not be a concept because a concept arises, abides and then is destroyed.
If velocity was a concept then velocity would disappear as soon as the concept of velocity disappeared from someone's mind. That would mean that if you do not have the concept of velocity in your mind then it does not exist. In other words, the existence of velocity depends on a particular person holding it in their mind because velocity is a concept.