- #71
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
hurkyl,
basic question: what are the basics?
cheers
phoenix
basic question: what are the basics?
cheers
phoenix
What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?
In summary, the conversation is about the limitations of understanding ontology and the study of what exists. Protonman argues that the reality of the small cannot negate the reality of the large and that the macroscopic processes emerge from the microscopic processes. Tom asks for clarification on the meaning of "logical" and "ontology" and argues that experimental evidence is necessary to determine reality. Protonman believes that logic extends beyond just symbols and includes Eastern and Buddhist logic. The conversation also touches on the limitations of understanding velocity and abstract objects.
- #72
protonman
- 285
- 0
Regarding Dharmakirti first off I would like to know the scholar who wrote the articles. Secondly, the information found in translation, in general, is not very good and should not be relied upon. Lastly, I don't know enough about Dharmakirti's philosophy itself to comment on whether what I am studying is congruent with his original logic. I am confident that it is but I have not studied his writings directly. The little I know of his views I can say yes the method I use does reflect Dharmakirti's logic.
But you need to understand here that my arguments are not following formal Buddhist logic. They are more or less bits and pieces of Buddhist logic and not organized in any precise way. The way to do it formallly would be to make a statement something like:
Sound is impermanent because it is produced. At this point there are only two possible responses and the argument goes on.
Regarding your second comment I did give an answer I said A vase exists independence on the clay that made it. What this not sufficient for you? I think because you don't understand how I debate you think my answers are not answers. For example, someone asked me before what produces a vase and I said its cause. This is a perfectly logical and appropriate answer. It may not be the end of the discussion but it is an answer. What is important for the questioner is knowing what equestions to ask.
But you need to understand here that my arguments are not following formal Buddhist logic. They are more or less bits and pieces of Buddhist logic and not organized in any precise way. The way to do it formallly would be to make a statement something like:
Sound is impermanent because it is produced. At this point there are only two possible responses and the argument goes on.
Regarding your second comment I did give an answer I said A vase exists independence on the clay that made it. What this not sufficient for you? I think because you don't understand how I debate you think my answers are not answers. For example, someone asked me before what produces a vase and I said its cause. This is a perfectly logical and appropriate answer. It may not be the end of the discussion but it is an answer. What is important for the questioner is knowing what equestions to ask.
- #73
Zero
Does anyone else see the pattern here? First, Protonman's arguments were based on his superior knowledge of physics. When nobody bought that argument, he switched over to saying that it was based on 2000 year old Buddhist knowledge. Now, thanks to Hurkyl's posting of real Buddhist beliefs, protonman has abandoned his reliance on 2000 year old Buddhist claims. We've now moved on to the claim that protonman picks and chooses those ideas that suit him, while ignoring the rest of physics and Buddhism.
How can you get anywhere with someone who refuses to pick a position, and whose only constant is "protonman is always right"? None of this, apparently, is based on reason, logic, or evidence; it seems to be based on a need to pretend to be intelligent and non-conformist.
How can you get anywhere with someone who refuses to pick a position, and whose only constant is "protonman is always right"? None of this, apparently, is based on reason, logic, or evidence; it seems to be based on a need to pretend to be intelligent and non-conformist.
- #74
protonman
- 285
- 0
You are obviously a very unreasonable person. What I said is that I can not be sure if my interpretation is exactly in accordance with Dharmakirti because I have not studied him. This is what true scholars do, i.e. they don't speculate on what they don't know or if they are speculating they indicate it. I don't want to speculate on Dharmakirti. Later I said that the logic I understand is in accordance with a Tibetan interpretation of Dharmakirti. You see among honest scholars there is always different interpretations. The same thing occurs in physics as well. While there is a core of commonly accepted beliefs, there is always a variety of different interpretation in relation to these core views.
Secondly, if you are going to base real Buddhist beliefs on what is posted on the internet that is your choice. I have good reason for what I say and you may think I am dodging the question but I am not. I know Tibetan and I know the mistakes that occur when translating from Tibetan to English. The majority of Westerners who study Buddhism get it wrong. For one thing they don't know Tibetan of another asian language. Secondly, they haven't studied with qualified teachers.
Third, I never claimed to know more about physics than anyone else. In reality since you sound like you have studied it more you probably do know more about the details. But I would say that a good amount people have not actually thought about it as I have.
If you are interested in having an intelligent discussion fine. But don't get upset because you really don't understand what I am saying. In your attempt to discredit me you have gotten it all wrong and it makes you look silly.
- #75
Zero
There IS no argument here, protonman. You have declared yourself correct, you have declared everyone else to be incorrect, and have done both based on a shifting basis.
On the other hand, this also strikes me as someone rejecting science because it doesn't incorporate his personal favorite mythology. What you've got to realize is that not including your philosophy doesn't make science wrong; that is the great thing about science, in that it seeks to exclude the influence of personal beliefs.
Of course, IMO, saying that QM is incorrect because it contradicts Buddhism is like saying that geology is incorrect because it contradicts the Bible...you are welcome to your opinion, but it isn't based on logic, evidence, or reason. It is based on emotion and personal bias.
On the other hand, this also strikes me as someone rejecting science because it doesn't incorporate his personal favorite mythology. What you've got to realize is that not including your philosophy doesn't make science wrong; that is the great thing about science, in that it seeks to exclude the influence of personal beliefs.
Of course, IMO, saying that QM is incorrect because it contradicts Buddhism is like saying that geology is incorrect because it contradicts the Bible...you are welcome to your opinion, but it isn't based on logic, evidence, or reason. It is based on emotion and personal bias.
- #76
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
Exactly. Or, as I said, “partless” means “indivisible”. It does not mean “independence” (of anything).
Even if “partless” did mean “independent of its parts” (which it doesn’t), that would still not imply that it means “independent of anything”. You have to prove these things.
How do you make this illogical leap? You go from “partless” to “independence” to “acausal” to “imperceptible” in the blink of an eye, without any logical justification whatsoever. If that is what Buddhist logic is all about, then you can keep it. You can use that “logic” to prove whatever you like.
It’s not the idea that extrapolates to many absurd consequences, it is your method of reasoning that does.
Next post…
So why don’t you actually present an argument that proves your case? For all your bemoaning of our inability to think for ourselves, we (the “science types”) are the only ones here who are arguing rationally. I know you have written a lot of “stuff”, but I wouldn’t characterize very much of it as logical argumentation. I doubt any philosopher would, Eastern or otherwise.
We could say the same to you about physics, as well as logic and philosophy. What you are doing here is neither science nor philosophy, but rather preaching an unsubstantiated mystical point of view. If you actually made an attempt to justify your claims, then we could consider it philosophy.
LOL You have been running away from questions since you got here.
“What substrate is implied by Maxwell’s equations?”
“Where in deductive logic is a decision procedure to determine the truth values of statements?”
And the list goes on.
Then why are you posting here? How do you expect to be taken seriously if you are unwilling or unable to render a coherent account of your outrageous claims?
- #77
Zero
Hmmmm...something I'm wondering: why the appeals to the "authority" of Buddhism, without any actual statements about what Buddhism claims? Instead of bringing up "Buddhist Madhyahamika philsophy", and claiming that it is more accurate than modern science, why not show an example of how one explains the evidence better than the other, using the principles of that philosophy? Otherwise, protonman, all you are doing is name-dropping to give an impression of your knowledge, without providing any proof of your knowledge.
- #78
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 760
- 2
In any case, you should be able to answer Hurkyl's questions about starting from a common ground. Is that part of Dharmakirti (or Budhist) logic?
If you don't want to go into that, then you can tell us what is it that you use as "budhist logic". We don't need "babysitting" (as you so arrogantly called it), but just some general idea on what you are basing you positions.
The problem so far is that you keep claiming that your position is based on a "logic" and methods that are different from what we use. If this is true, just saying so does not build any basis for a meaningful discussion.
If you want to actually have a fruitful discussion, stop patronizing people (which takes you nowhere, and usually comes from weak positions), and start showing arguments.
For instance, why do you say budhist logic implies that the "particle-wave" description shows that physicists "have no idea what is going on"?
- #79
protonman
- 285
- 0
You really need to learn to read better. I never said (check my posts) that science is wrong because it does not agree with Buddhism. Some areas of science I do not accept and this is based on logical grounds. I do not discount all of science as you seem to imply. Again, check my posts they are all self-consistent.
Lastly, science is full of personal beliefs as are most intellectual pursuits. If you claim that science is purely objective you are way off.
I want to recap because this is a very important point. I never said science, or anything for that matter, is wrong because it does not include my views or because it contradicts Buddhism. THE ONLY EASON is brought up Buddhism is because people here kept quoting their sources so I quoted mine. My idea here was to debate purely on the basis of reason without reference to each others individual schools directly. The reasoning behind this is that we both don't accept the same thing and therefore the argument would go nowhere. As a side note this is exactly what Dharmakirti said about a common ground which you so boldly claimed I ignored. Look back at my posts. I made this point with Tom a few times and he did the same.
If you are going to criticize me at least do the research. All you are doing is making yourself look like a baby instead of someone who is trying to have an intelligent discussion.
- #80
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
In a nutshell, Quantum Mechanics (QM) has a problem called nonlocality. That is, its interactions are "at a distance", meaning that the effects are simultaneous with causes with no lag time for the propagation of information. But the problem with QM is not the Q, it's the M. That is, Classical Mechanics has the same problem. That is why your argument in the Newton's Third Law thread was so misguided.
Enter Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT solves the problems by replacing point particles with local quantized fields. This takes care of the locality problem, but it introduces a new difficulty. That is, when we try to calculate any observable in QFT, we get an infinite result. We can get around this using mathematical tricks, but that is not entirely satisfactory. Also, QFT can only be solved using perturbative methods, which is also not entirely satisfactory. Furthermore, QFT does not provide a framework for unification of the fundamental forces of nature, and it is believed that they should be unified.
Enter String Theory (ST). ST solves the problem of the "sick infinities" of QFT, and it actually requires that the four forces be unified. It still has the problem of not being solvable without perturbation methods, but theorists are working on that.
There are other approaches, but I am not too familiar with them.
- #81
Zero
Do we really need to name-calling and insults, or can we get an assertion based on something besides "I don't accept it"?
WHY don't you accept certain things? If your lack of acceptance is based on Buddhism, then we would like to see a quote from some Buddhist book, philosopher, pamphet, magazine, etc., which shows the Buddhist philosophy with leads you to that lack of acceptance.
WHY don't you accept certain things? If your lack of acceptance is based on Buddhism, then we would like to see a quote from some Buddhist book, philosopher, pamphet, magazine, etc., which shows the Buddhist philosophy with leads you to that lack of acceptance.
- #82
protonman
- 285
- 0
Thakns for the post, helpful information. I did have some questions on the above paragraph.
What is the difference between a point particle and a localized quantum field? The reason I ask this is that I thought point particles were part of QFT. How is this related to the mistake you claim I made regarding Newton's third law.
Isn't renormalization somewhat a mathematical trick itself?
- #83
protonman
- 285
- 0
You are making it very difficult to be polite. You don't even read my posts. All the answers to the questions you keep on asking are right in front of you. You don't believe what you see, you see what you believe.
Until you make the smallest effort to engage in an honest discussion we are through. Look at these other people Tom, etc. They are at least interested in having a discussion even if we disagree. You are just out to discredit me. But I know why. You either can't read or you just don't understand what is being written and are too enbarased to admit it.
- #84
Zero
So where is the post where you rejected a specific aspect of QM or science in general that you reject, and the specific quoting of some Buddhist philosopher to back up your rejection?
- #85
protonman
- 285
- 0
I said that peception can not be established as valid or invalid via scientific method. Therefore, you can not establish the validity of the investigative technique. Secondly, I never quoted anyone to back this up. As I have said countless times my arguments are based on reason and logic, not appeal to an authority. This is unlike the science community who constantly refer to experiment as the source of authority. This prompted me to bring in my sources. It was after the fact, that is after you people kept bringing in your experimental refernces, that I brought in mine.
- #86
Zero
Well, can we SEE the reason and logic, instead of reading your claim to reason and logic?
You have claimed many things...knowledge of physics, knowledge of Buddhism...but you haven't displayed how either leads to your specific positions. You haven't brought in any souces, you name-dropped sources, which is not the same thing. For instance, you haven't seen Tom or anyone else say "Einstein(or any other physicist) says this is true, so it is true". You have claimed that certain things are illogical because of Buddhism, but you haven't shown which parts of QM conflict with which parts of Buddhism. You haven't actually displayed your reasoning on any level, at all. You have asserted that your reasoning is logical, but you've never actually(to my knowledge) SHOWN that reasoning.
- #87
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
i think that is a very astute observation, zero. we are all teachers of teachers here. but we lack what others have.
- #88
protonman
- 285
- 0
It is not my problem if you can't follow my arguments. I have stated them over and over again and am done doing that. You are so full of yourself. Again, I never said anything was true because a particular person said it.
I presented arguments why science could not establish if the perception if valid or not. I presented agruments why partless particles could not exist. I am tired of dealing with you and your flaming. As far as I am concerned we are done.
- #89
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. By the way, people have responded to this. Hurkyl and I both asked you what makes you think logic is more reliable than perception.
So you keep saying. But you have never actually presented any of your "reason and logic", so how can we know for sure?
While it is true that we appeal to experiment when talking about scientific theories (indeed, it would be irrational to do otherwise!), it is also true that the only logical arguments presented here are the ones presented by the "science types".
It's fine to bring in your sources, but at some point you are actually going to have to build a case based on what those sources say.
- #90
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
You are so full of yourself. or are you? are you full of yourself or not? if so, why? if not, why not? are you being honest with yourself?
- #91
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
I see that SelfAdjoint has already answered your question better than I could in your "What is QFT" thread.
You were trying to draw a conclusion on the causality (or lack thereof) between an action-reaction force pair based on classical mechanics, when that theory does not have such notions built into it. As I kept saying, classical mechanics says nothing of the nature of interactions between particles, and it treats them nonlocally.
In other words, classical mechanics assumes that information regarding forces travels infinitely fast, which makes your attempt to use classical mechanics to prove tha the information travels infinitely fast nothing more than a circular argument.
Yes, and that was precisely the trick to which I was referring.
- #92
Zero
You keep repeating your assertion that you have given an argument, and yout you actually haven't. I asked for you to point to a post where you presented your logic. You have not done so. You have stated certain things as being true, but have not to my knowledge actually shown why those statements are true.
Instead, you have attacked me personally...and STILL refused to show me where I am wrong. You have in the past claimed scientific knowledge, then backpedaled when asked to answer specific questions(about Maxwell's equations, for instance.) You have claimed that Buddhism backs up your claims, and then packpedaled from that position as well(when asked about specific Buddhist teachings).
Tom has pointed it out. Hurkyl has pointed it out. Ahrkron has pointed t out. I have honed in specifically on the same complaint that we all have, which is that you do NOT present evidence, reasoning, or logic. You instead make declarations, you have claimed that Buddhism is superior to physics without actually quoting any Buddhism, and generally refuse to support your assertions.
- #93
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,584
- 24
And you never presented an argument on why logic is any more reliable, which brings us back to Square One.
And those arguments have been thoroughly rebutted.
Asking you to justify your claims is not flaming. I know you think you have already justified them, but you have not. The "logic" you appear to be using looks like it can be used to prove just about anything at all. There is no apparent rhyme or reason to any of it. If you are here to make a claim, then the onus is on you to make yourself understood.
- #94
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
the way things are going, this conversation will never end.
- #95
Zero
Care to show us some substantiated claims of Buddhism? Or was this in fact an appeal to authority?
- #96
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
socratic method vs buddhism deathmatch, round 30,000! FIGHT
when will you people finally get it right?
- #97
Zero
We can't have a "deathmatch" yet...someone's got to actually find Buddhism and get it to the arena, instead of just announcing that it is going to win.
- #98
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
Originally posted by Zero
We can't have a "deathmatch" yet...someone's got to actually find Buddhism and get it to the arena, instead of just announcing that it is going to win.
touche. ;P
but when will you guys ever learn.
i challenge all of you to PROVE, beyond all doubt, that i am not a chat-bot.
- #99
Zero
Quit trying to go off-topic...start a new thread for that, and I'll tell you my reasoning for it.
And when I say "I'll tell you my reasoning", I will actually do so, instead of making the assertion that I am right.
- #100
protonman
- 285
- 0
I don't have too. All I said was that your method of investigation is not valid. If the method is not valid then the claims are not valid.
You have refuted nothing. You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge. Therefore, the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements.
- #101
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
this debate is futile.
- #102
protonman
- 285
- 0
What is the definition of a chat-bot?
- #103
phoenixthoth
- 1,605
- 2
Agreement is the seed of salvation.
- #104
Zero
Lots of assertions in this post...no reasoning or logic. You have to back up any assertion you make. You refuse to do so. Here, let me spell it out for you as clearly as possible. You make assertions, I'll quote them back to you; to back them up you will have to answer my questions.
Assertion:"your method of investigation is not valid"
Questions: Why not? What method of investigation isvalid? Be specific.
Assertion: "You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge."
Questions: On what specific evidence, logic, or reason do you base this? Which method would be preferable to you? Be as specific as possible, and show examples of how your preferred method is more accurate than the scientific method.
Assertion: "the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements"
Questions: What, if any, is the evidential or logical basis do you have to reject the outcome of a specific experiment? What explanation do you have to explain the evidences provided by a specific experiment?
- #105
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 760
- 2
But you are not showing any evidence of a method of investigation to support your claims.
As people have repeatedly told you, stating things does not count as argument. So far you have provided extremely little in terms of arguments.
As you well say here, you keep stating things, but showing no alternative method.
Many of your statements don't even need full blown experiments to be refuted, but observation and logic. You are still to answer many of the questions we have asked you.
Similar threads
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
STEM Educators and Teaching
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
Programming and Computer Science