What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
It makes no sense because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

Premise 1: If partless particles exist, then there would be something that exists independently of its parts

Conclusion: Therefore, partless particles do not exist.

Of course, the missing premise here is:

Premise 2: Nothing exists independently of the parts of partless particles.

But since the class of "parts of partless particles" is empty, the above statement actually says nothing.

I know the class of partless particles is empty. That is my point. Physics accepts these partless particles and I am showing they can not exist.

If something existended independent of its parts it would exist independently or inherently. If this was the case it could never change, never be perceived. Essentially, it could never depend on causes and conditions.

No, what I am saying (and I think I have made this perfectly clear) is not that scientific theories are "absolutely right". Scientific theories are quite incapable of describing reality "as it exists". Indeed, the human intellect does not have access to the noumenal aspects of physical objects.

No, your understanding of human intellect does not have access. If you study Buddhism you will understand that everything can be known. Every aspect of all phenomena can be perfectly known.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Says who, the Buddha?

This comes from experience. Is the concept of velocity always in your mind? If not then it must arrise, abide and be destroyed.

I would not say that. I would say that the concept called "velocity" disappears when there are no minds to think about it. [/B]

You need to make up your mind. Initially you said velocity is a concept. Now you are saying the 'concept called velocity.' I am going on your first statement that velocity is a concept.

It is clear that a concept is not always held in the mind. So if velocity is a concept velocity must cease to exist when it is not held in the mind.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
I know the class of partless particles is empty. That is my point.

Err...that's not what I said. I said the class of parts of partless particles is empty. To make your argument valid, you have to add a premise that refers to that empty class. But that premise actually says nothing.

Physics accepts these partless particles and I am showing they can not exist.

If something existended independent of its parts it would exist independently or inherently. If this was the case it could never change, never be perceived. Essentially, it could never depend on causes and conditions.

There is no reason a structureless particle could not be perceived, nor is there any reason it could not experience change in some way (such as changing its location by moving from place to place).

No, your understanding of human intellect does not have access. If you study Buddhism you will understand that everything can be known. Every aspect of all phenomena can be perfectly known.

That is your unsupported claim.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
You need to make up your mind. Initially you said velocity is a concept. Now you are saying the 'concept called velocity.' I am going on your first statement that velocity is a concept.

The two statements mean precisely the same thing.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Err...that's not what I said. I said the class of parts of partless particles is empty. To make your argument valid, you have to add a premise that refers to that empty class. But that premise actually says nothing.

If something is partless it exists independent of anything else. So, by definition, it can not depend on anything else. This negates any possiblity of it depending on a cause or effect. If this is the case it can never change.

There is no reason a structureless particle could not be perceived, nor is there any reason it could not experience change in some way (such as changing its location by moving from place to place).

If it moved from point A to B then it would have to have some relation to points A and B. What could change its position. You need to think about these points. They are extremely difficult to understand and take more than a few minutes of consideration to understand.

The basic premise is that if something exists independent of its parts it exists independent of anything else.

That is your unsupported claim.

This is extremely supported. By logic, textural reference and experimental confirmation.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
The two statements mean precisely the same thing.

Then consider the second statement I made...

It is clear that a concept is not always held in the mind. So if velocity is a concept velocity must cease to exist when it is not held in the mind.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
If something is partless it exists independent of anything else. So, by definition, it can not depend on anything else. This negates any possiblity of it depending on a cause or effect. If this is the case it can never change.

That would be clear if the definition of "partless" implied the definition of "independent". But the definition of "partless" simply implies "indivisible". How do you make the inference from the one to the indivisibility to independence?

If it moved from point A to B then it would have to have some relation to points A and B.

OK, fine.

What could change its position.

It's position could be changed by collision with another object, for instance.

You need to think about these points. They are extremely difficult to understand and take more than a few minutes of consideration to understand.

Now what I seem to be missing is your inference between "indivisible" and "unchangable".

The basic premise is that if something exists independent of its parts it exists independent of anything else.

But what about when the thing in question has no parts? It takes us back to the "empty class" I referred you to above.

This (edit: that any aspect of any phenomenon can be completely known) is extremely supported.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind supporting it, then?

By logic, textural reference and experimental confirmation.

Whose logic?
Which texts?
What experiments?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
It is clear that a concept is not always held in the mind. So if velocity is a concept velocity must cease to exist when it is not held in the mind.

As I said, I would say that velocity must cease to exist when there are no minds to think of it. That said, let me clarify exactly what I mean, because there are two ridiculous conclusions that can be mistakenly drawn.

Ridiculous Conclusion #1: The Conclusion of "X and ~X"
First, I suppose I could agree with your statement above if it said that velocity must cease to exist to me when I am not thinking about it, and that I re-form the concept each time I focus on it. What I would not agree with is that when I (one particular subject) cease thinking about velocity, that it ceases to exist in general. Because when I am not thinking about it, someone else could be. But if someone else is holding it, then for that person it does exist. That said, I am not trying to say that the concept can both exist and not exist simultaneously.

Ridiculous Conclusion #2: The Conclusion that Mistakes the Map for the Territory
Second, I am not equating "velocity" with "moving objects". That is, I am not implying that everything in the world simply ceases all motion when I am not holding the concept of velocity in my mind. What I am saying is that velocity is a useful mathematical concept we attach to observed moving bodies. And like all mathematical abstractions, it is not to be identified with the physical objects from which it is abstracted.

 

[protonman]

That would be clear if the definition of "partless" implied the definition of "independent". But the definition of "partless" simply implies "indivisible". How do you make the inference from the one to the indivisibility to independence?

Partless means it exists independent of its parts. This impiles that it exists independent of anything. If something exists independent of its parts how could it exist in dependence on anything? Therefore it can not exist in dependence on cause and effect. You couldn't even perceive something that had no parts because it would be independent of perception. This idea extrapolates to many absurd consequences.

 

[Hurkyl]

Lack of imagination does not a proof make.

 

[protonman]

OK, let's settle this. Does the car have velocity?

 

[protonman]

I have a question on some of the things you posted before. You mentioned that QM had problems that led to quantum field theory which in turn has problems leading to string theory. I was wondering if you could explain these developments.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Lack of imagination does not a proof make.

OK Yoda.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Lack of imagination does not a proof make.

OK Yoda.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hrm, yes, repetative you are!



There are two questions in which I'm interested in seeing the answer.

If something exists independent of its parts how could it exist in dependence on anything?

Let's start with a less cluttered question, for one cannot possibly think to know the answer to your question without first knowing the answer to this question:

How can anything exist in dependence on anything?

Partless particles, meaning point particles as you know them,

(nevermind for the moment that point particles are only used for the purposes of approximation)

Why would you say a point particle is partless? Might a point particle be made of only one part (itself), or of several other point particles "bound" together?

 

[protonman]

How can anything exist in dependence on anything?

I really don't understand the question. It is so obvious that I think you are joking. A vase exists independence on the clay that made it.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Partless means it exists independent of its parts.

No. Partless means that it has no parts.

This impiles that it exists independent of anything.

Nope. This may be a "common sense" notion, but it definitely does not have the status of a nessesary feature of existence.

The fact that, in our everyday lives, "things are dependent on their parts" is a result of the kind of interaction we have with our environment. This interaction, in turn, is a result of the nature of our perceptual systems and of the type of phenomena those systems are able to register.

The features of our everyday experiences, however, need not (and do not) stay the same at all scales of size, energy and other quantities.

This, in turn, is actually quite natural, but people keep stumbling on it.

A first example that comes to my mind is the mechanism for genetics. People can accept, without too much effort, that sperm does not include a "small baby" inside. It is clear that, in order to explain how a baby is formed, a different kind of explanation (other than "smaller babies") is to be found.

However, for some reason, when it comes to physics, people keep trying to find "smaller babies":

"since, in my experience, all watches, birds, rocks, trees, etc. are dependent on their parts, then this should hold always"

This, of course, cannot be an assumption when one explores the mechanisms that give rise to "my experience".

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I really don't understand the question. It is so obvious that I think you are joking. A vase exists independence on the clay that made it.

What does that clay "depend on"?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
No. Partless means that it has no parts.

Have you studied Buddhist Madhyahamika philsophy? If not you do not have enough understanding to refute what I am saying. The ideas I have written were and still are debated by incredible scholars for over 2000 years. I think it is nice that you think you have figured it out but you haven't.

I definitely think physics is interesting and somewhat useful but it is not all that it is made out to be. The teachings on this philosophy found in Buddhist literature are extremely hard to understand. There is no other system of thought that contains these ideas in existence. They are truly unique. If you read them you understand that an ordinary person could not have taught them. The person expounding these views had to have an understanding of reality beyond the ordinary everyday.

I'll be honest and up front. I have studied both, you have not. To be blunt you are not qualified to make the statements you have.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
What does that clay "depend on"?

You asked a question and I answered it. Do you not agree that the vase depends upon its clay?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
If something exists independent of its parts how could it exist in dependence on anything?

You need to answer Hurkyl's question regarding what you mean with "existence in dependence on" something.

However, as I mentioned before, regardless of you mean with that, the word "existence" is defined based on our perceptions (as everything else), and the properties of what gets assigned the adjective "existent" is also dependent on what we perceive. QM, QFT and others are actually (and not more than) summaries of our perceptions when using the best equipment and resources to "poke nature".

When we apply those methods to the macro scale, they show parts. For some reason, you are fine with what science has to say in that realm. However, when the very same methods and logic are applied to other set of phenomena, they show no parts, and then you decide you don't like them.

However, this methods do portray a self consistent picture of how perceptions are organized that, among other things, can put everything together without the need of "parts" in some foundational elements. The very existence of this framework shows that using partless things as a basic element is possible and useful, and that "partlessness" is independent of "cause and effect" , "perception", "mind" and other concepts with which they are entangled in some old philosophies.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Therefore it can not exist in dependence on cause and effect.

As I said before, the idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with "partlessness". Take for instance QFT (I am not saying it is the ultimately corrrect model of reality; just that it is a working model for many phenomena). On it, you can perfectly express causal relationships among partless particles.

i.e., you have on it, at the same time, partless particles that do exhibit strict causal interactions.

Ergo, your assertion that "partless" implies "no cause-effect" is false. QFT is a (very well developed and extremely useful) counter example of your claim.

You couldn't even perceive something that had no parts because it would be independent of perception.

Again, the fact that a photon does not have parts does not preclude it from interacting with my retina.

Regardless of the actual "partlessness" of photons, this is another example of a self-consistent model in which there are particles that are, at the same time partless and not independent of perception

 

[protonman]

It is hard to say without a particular example.

You can say all you want about QM and QFT but what it comes down to is that you don't know if the theories are even correct. This conversation is getting very tiring. I already told you you are not qualified to have this discussion.

The views that modern physics holds today were understood thousands of years ago. They were analyzed and understood. You guys are making the same mistake that the Buddhists were refuting. You don't even understand what I wrote before. If you read these teachings you understand they were not written by ordinary people. You read physics and you basically see that it is written by people who really have no idea what is going on.

The depth that the ideas of dependence and independence are analyzed in Buddhist philosophy is extremely deep. They have not even been addressed in western thought. I am willing to bet that this is the first time you have even heard these ideas. I have told you before you are not qualified to comment on this subject and I am done talking to you about it. It is getting boring babysitting. Just think about the ideas and try to come to an understanding of them.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
As I said before, the idea of cause and effect has nothing to do with "partlessness". Take for instance QFT (I am not saying it is the ultimately corrrect model of reality; just that it is a working model for many phenomena). On it, you can perfectly express causal relationships among partless particles.

i.e., you have on it, at the same time, partless particles that do exhibit strict causal interactions.

Ergo, your assertion that "partless" implies "no cause-effect" is false. QFT is a (very well developed and extremely useful) counter example of your claim.



Again, the fact that a photon does not have parts does not preclude it from interacting with my retina.

Regardless of the actual "partlessness" of photons, this is another example of a self-consistent model in which there are particles that are, at the same time partless and not independent of perception

No. The model says the particles are partless. Look, you just don't have enough understanding to think about what I am saying. I don't care about QFT. You can quote it all day. Buddhist practices are far more sustantiated than QFT. QFT is less than 100 years old. It is a baby theory. Buddhist philosophy is over 2000 years old and has stood the test of time.

 

[protonman]

You are really frustrating to talk to. In general you physics people are arrogant. I did enjoy talking to Tom but you have to start thinking and stop avoiding the questions you can't answer. I would rather talk about things you know as opposed to those you don't.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, without delving into the actual arguments myself, these three statements seem to be the crux of the issue...

Originally posted by protonman
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.

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.

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.

These three statements, protonman, are incompatible with the scientific worldview and that's the reason you've met so much resistance here.

Newtonian physics was and is "correct" only within its limited domain. Many of its limitations were even known at the time Newton concieved of it. And that's ok - even though it's incomplete, it's still a useful theory. And that's why it's still taught in school.

QM and Relativity give us more than Newtonian physics: they enable us to make more accurate predictions and fit existing data better than Newtonian physics(in their domain). The underlying laws of the universe that Netwon's theories, Relativity, and QM deal with are eternal. Our theories are our attempt to understand and use them. And through time, science has gotten us closer to understanging them.

Regarding your objection to science using what cannot be observed directly with our senses, I find that ironic. I won't doubt that Buddhism can give you something science can't, but whatever Buddhism can give you occurs only in your mind and isn't observable with your senses. On the other side, the microscopic or other invisible observations that are made in science and our theories are based on can still be observed with your senses, even if only indirectly. You are, after all, using a computer to view this post. Perhaps you're also eating popcorn made in a microwave oven. If science couldn't accurately deal with happenings outside our direct ability to sense, these things could not work.

Whether Buddhism can give us a "better" understanding of reality than science or not, I don't know (I haven't achieved nirvana). But that question isn't germane to science. One thing that is clear is that in its domain, science has been wildly successful and in science's domain, Buddhism has given us little (I think it was Zero who pointed out there has never been a Buddhist on the moon).

In short, protonman, your worldveiw isn't scientific, its philosophical. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, but when you attempt to mix the two worldviews or interject philosophy into science's domain, that's when problems, such as the ones seen on this board, arise.

If you want to discuss science from a scientific point of view, that's why this board exists. If you want to discuss scicence from a philosophical point of view, that's why the philosophy sub-forums exist. But understand that the opinions of the mentors aren't going to change on this issue(Tom, btw, does speak for all of us - part of the reason we mentors were selected is we share the scientific worldview).

In any case, we do appreciate that you've softened your tone. So long as you keep it civil, you'll be welcome here.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Have you studied Buddhist Madhyahamika philsophy? If not you do not have enough understanding to refute what I am saying.

That's funny, I thought that, in order to refute QM, one would need to use arguments, not old names and repetitively allude to "over 2000 years".

The ideas I have written were and still are debated by incredible scholars for over 2000 years.

Congratulations to those scholars. As for this discussion, I still haven't seen much substance on your arguments against QM.

I definitely think physics is interesting and somewhat useful but it is not all that it is made out to be.

By whom? Usually news briefs about science do exaggerate what it can do and explain, I give you that.

The teachings on this philosophy found in Buddhist literature are extremely hard to understand.

Which does not make them correct, neither applicable to the discussion at hand.

There is no other system of thought that contains these ideas in existence. They are truly unique.

idem

If you read them you understand that an ordinary person could not have taught them.

idem

The person expounding these views had to have an understanding of reality beyond the ordinary everyday.

A true fan of QFT can say the same of it. Let's get back to real arguments, instead of each cheering for his idols, shall we?

I'll be honest and up front. I have studied both, you have not. To be blunt you are not qualified to make the statements you have.

The problem seems to be that you try to assess the correctness of what physical theory says about "existence", "causality", "reality" and other concepts, without first making sure that you are using the same language.

Budhist philosophy does have its own treatment for those words, and it surely has many things to say about how they relate to other concepts (also defined, either implicit or explicitly, within Budhist philosophy). However, without first identifying the differences between both, it makes no sense to go and try to use it to show the "mistakes" in what QM or QFT have verified about experimental outcomes.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ok, without delving into the actual arguments myself, these three statements seem to be the crux of the issue... These three statements, protonman, are incompatible with the scientific worldview and that's the reason you've met so much resistance here.

Newtonian physics was and is "correct" only within its limited domain. Many of its limitations were even known at the time Newton concieved of it. And that's ok - even though it's incomplete, it's still a useful theory. And that's why it's still taught in school.

QM and Relativity give us more than Newtonian physics: they enable us to make more accurate predictions and fit existing data better than Newtonian physics(in their domain). The underlying laws of the universe that Netwon's theories, Relativity, and QM deal with are eternal. Our theories are our attempt to understand and use them. And through time, science has gotten us closer to understanging them.

Regarding your objection to science using what cannot be observed directly with our senses, I find that ironic. I won't doubt that Buddhism can give you something science can't, but whatever Buddhism can give you occurs only in your mind and isn't observable with your senses. On the other side, the microscopic or other invisible observations that are made in science and our theories are based on can still be observed with your senses, even if only indirectly. You are, after all, using a computer to view this post. Perhaps you're also eating popcorn made in a microwave oven. If science couldn't accurately deal with happenings outside our direct ability to sense, these things could not work.

Whether Buddhism can give us a "better" understanding of reality than science or not, I don't know (I haven't achieved nirvana). But that question isn't germane to science. One thing that is clear is that in its domain, science has been wildly successful and in science's domain, Buddhism has given us little (I think it was Zero who pointed out there has never been a Buddhist on the moon).

In short, protonman, your worldveiw isn't scientific, its philosophical. There isn't anything wrong with that per se, but when you attempt to mix the two worldviews or interject philosophy into science's domain, that's when problems, such as the ones seen on this board, arise.

If you want to discuss science from a scientific point of view, that's why this board exists. If you want to discuss scicence from a philosophical point of view, that's why the philosophy sub-forums exist. But understand that the opinions of the mentors aren't going to change on this issue(Tom, btw, does speak for all of us - part of the reason we mentors were selected is we share the scientific worldview).

In any case, we do appreciate that you've softened your tone. So long as you keep it civil, you'll be welcome here.

First you don't know if a Buddhist has been to the moon. Second, how many Buddhas were produced by physics. Third, I don't know what you were thinking but Buddhism does give access to objects beyond the senses. One is called inferential cognition. In addition, the Buddha knows all that exists. He knows the details of every particle in existence.

I have studied science. I know your mindset. But you need to expand your view beyond science. It is not going to bring you to a complete set of knowledge. The claim by physicists to even be close to something called a theory of everything is extremely arrogant. By making such statements they don't realize how ignorant they really are. They know a very little about a small sub-set of reality.

As for your approval if I need your permission to stay here there is going to be a problem. I have a hang-up with people like you passing judgement on me. I really don't give a hoot if I am welcome here. The reason my tone has changed has nothing to do with being welcomed here.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Look, you just don't have enough understanding to think about what I am saying.

Is that upposed to contribute anything to your positions? I find it extremely unlikely.

I don't care about QFT.

If you were going to bail out, then why did you start off saying that:

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.

??

As of now, you have not given too much in way of arguments to substantiate such a statement.

You can quote it all day. Buddhist practices are far more sustantiated than QFT.

In what sense?

QFT is less than 100 years old. It is a baby theory. Buddhist philosophy is over 2000 years old and has stood the test of time. [/B]

Come on. This does not add anything to the discussion. Christianism, prostitution, heterosexual marriage, patriarchal family systems, domestic violence against women and children, slavery and many other institutions have "stood the test of time" as well, some for longer than that, and that does not mean they have anything to say about Neurobiology, or any other scientific discipline.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I find it quite odd that you try to disqualify QFT's conclusions on the basis of a theory that starts from a framework that is completely orthogonal to that of QFT.

 

[cookiemonster]

Maybe I'm out of line here, but something's been bugging me for most of this thread.

protonman, if you're unwilling to accept that you do not already have the answer to everything, why are you even here?

cookiemonster

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
You can say all you want about QM and QFT but what it comes down to is that you don't know if the theories are even correct.

"correct"?

If by that you mean logically sound, they are. This is how the term would be used in science.

However, if by "correct" you mean "the ultimate ontological theory of reality", then you are right, but that is no surprise for anybody. No one who has studied QFT would claim it to be the final theory.

The views that modern physics holds today were understood thousands of years ago. They were analyzed and understood.

Again, if what you mean by "the views" is just extremely general statements about perception and knowledge (of the type "all we have is perception", "perception is the basis for knowledgde", "knowledge cannot be destroyed", etc.), then sure, but there's no surprise on it.

If, on the other hand, you mean specific issues like the wave-particle duality, the measurement problem, the wavefunction collapse, etc., this is simply not true. These concepts require much more than a deep understanding of nature. The mathematical machinery involved is essential to properly describe each.

If you read these teachings you understand they were not written by ordinary people. You read physics and you basically see that it is written by people who really have no idea what is going on.

Please cite an example taken from the Feynman Lectures that shows so.

The depth that the ideas of dependence and independence are analyzed in Buddhist philosophy is extremely deep. They have not even been addressed in western thought. I am willing to bet that this is the first time you have even heard these ideas.

Dependence and independence are quite often used in the scientific context. They even have formal definitions in terms of joint probability distributions.

You probably assign a different meaning to it. If so, it is of course unsensical to try to qualify the scientific meaning based on the budhist description (or vice versa).

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by protonman
First you don't know if a Buddhist has been to the moon.

I guess I should have qualified: No Buddhist has been to the moon in a physical sense that scientists would accept, ie Apollo 11. But I think you knew that's what I meant.

But you need to expand your view beyond science. It is not going to bring you to a complete set of knowledge. The claim by physicists to even be close to something called a theory of everything is extremely arrogant. By making such statements they don't realize how ignorant they really are. They know a very little about a small sub-set of reality.

"Everything" is only meant as everything within the field of physics, and I think you know that too. Scientists readily accept that there are things science can't ever do/know. What I find arrogant is philosophers not accepting that the converse is also true: there are things philosophy can't do/know.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by cookiemonster
Maybe I'm out of line here, but something's been bugging me for most of this thread.

protonman, if you're unwilling to accept that you do not already have the answer to everything, why are you even here?

cookiemonster

i couldn't resist making a cameo in this thread. :P

i think that is an astute observation/question.

russ_watters, i challenge you to prove that no astronaughts were buddhists. are you assuming that because of the color of their skin they weren't buddists? do you think you have to label yourself as a buddhist to be a buddist?

cheers
phoenix

 

[protonman]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read these teachings you understand they were not written by ordinary people. You read physics and you basically see that it is written by people who really have no idea what is going on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please cite an example taken from the Feynman Lectures that shows so.

When he says that light is both a particle and a wave.

 

[Hurkyl]

The Socratic method vs Buddhist logic, next up on philosophy deathmatch!


On a whim, I did a quick google search last night on Dharmakirti and read an article about him. The article suggested that his methodology emphasized that arguments should be made from a common ground.

I seem to remember suggesting the very same thing to you.

If I am to understand that you are presenting a faithful representation of modern Buddhist logic? And if so, from the fact you are not doing so, that this principle has been discarded since Dharmakirti's day?


Dharmakirti's methodology also emphasized that each word in an argument has only one meaning. Some words are, of course, ambiguous, but for the purposes of the argument only one meaning is used, which should be inferred from context or explicit mention.

You are using words in ways we've never seen before. Since we obviously cannot ascribe a meanings we have never seen to words, it would follow that you would have to explain the meaning in order to follow the spirit of Dharmakirti, or at least provide context from which we can infer a meaning.

You have not, despite being asked to do so. So, am I to assume that this principle has also been since discarded from Buddhist logic?


I also recall reading that Darmakirti's methodology employed the use of words (used properly) to form arguments that invoke knowledge. Arguments loosely resembled classical (eastern) logic in that there was a chain of reasoning from commonly accepted ground to a conclusion.

Since you make few arguments, and most of the ones you do start with the premise (whether explicit or implicit) "protonman is right", which is hardly common ground, am I to assume that this principle as well has been discarded from Buddhist logic?

You are really frustrating to talk to. In general you physics people are arrogant. I did enjoy talking to Tom but you have to start thinking and stop avoiding the questions you can't answer. I would rather talk about things you know as opposed to those you don't.

Frankly, we feel the same about you. (whoops, I'm speaking for others!)

One problem is that you don't "accept" our methods of pursuit of knowledge; you don't even seem to notice them. One method of learning proposes asking questions of those who know things (or claim to), starting with the basics of someone's position. You know, things like:

"How can anything exist in dependence on anything?"

(Oh, and I love the response: "I really don't understand the question. It is so obvious that I think you are joking. A vase exists independence on the clay that made it." And you accuse us of avoiding questions)

Oddly, it often seems that it is the basics that people have the hardest time answering.