What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[protonman]

According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions. Since you don't even understand the mind you can not talk about valid and invalid perceptions.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions. Since you don't even understand the mind you can not talk about valid and invalid perceptions.

Another unfounded statement.

When are you going to get it through your head that we cannot even address your statements in a meaningful way if you refuse to demonstrate the reasoning behind your statements?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't have too (edit: don't have to show that logic is more valid than perception). 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 can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. And you keep ignoring my point, which is that the method you are using (which you call "logic", but which I am sure is nothing of the kind) requires justification.

You have refuted nothing. You base your refutation on the scientific method which I have stated can not be used to establish valid knowledge.

This was in reference to the "partless particles" argument. And yes, I did refute it. You just ignored the refutation. That much is made obvious by your critique of it: I did not refer to any experiment to refute your claim. I used only logic. Specifically, I pointed out that your argument is not deductively valid, and that to make it valid we have to insert a statement that in actuality claims nothing as it refers to an empty class ("parts of partless particles").

Therefore, the results of your experiments can not enter as refutations of my statements.

Fine. But next time, instead of attacking the refutations I didn't make, how about having a go at the refutation that I did make?

This has been typical of your argumentative style thus far. You just keep running away from all the arguments that are put to you. If this keeps up, I won't hesitate to lock this thread, just like the others. It is really just a waste of bandwidth.

edit: fixed a typo

 

[quantumdude]

protonman: According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions. Since you don't even understand the mind you can not talk about valid and invalid perceptions.

Zero: Another unfounded statement.

When are you going to get it through your head that we cannot even address your statements in a meaningful way if you refuse to demonstrate the reasoning behind your statements?

Exactly.

Protonman, do you see a pattern here? Do you really not understand our incredulity? Can you really not understand why every person here thinks you are full of it?

It is because you consistently refuse to explain yourself!

The above quote from you is a perfect example. That's not a philosophical argument, it's a bald faced assertion.

 

[phoenixthoth]

this reminds me of how the emperor watched luke and his own father duel. ponder that one.

this debate is rather "electrifying" but it's getting real old real fast.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
According to the scientific method the senses are assumed to produce valid perceptions.

The scientific method just uses the fact that perceptions are consistent among different persons, and that they yield repeatable outcomes. This, in turn, is an observation, not an assumption.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. And you keep ignoring my point, which is that the method you are using (which you call "logic", but which I am sure is nothing of the kind) requires justification.

I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.

If you want to know inference is a valid perception because there are types of inferences that perceive an object exactly as it exists. Inference can understand the relation between different phenomena and through understanding this relation something about a subtle phenomena can be understood through its relation to a gross phenomena. For example, based visual perception a vase appears that it is not changing instant to instant. But from the point of view of logic it must be changing instant to instant. Why is this? Because if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent. If something is permenent and suddenly becomes permanent then you have a cause that arrises on its own. This violates cause and effect and those who accept this view have the burden of explaining why if cause and effect are not valid why do flowers not suddenly grow in the sky.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"The scientific method just uses the fact that perceptions are consistent among different persons, and that they yield repeatable outcomes. This, in turn, is an observation, not an assumption."

i have consistent observations with protonman. not necessarily in full agreement, but not blatantly inconsistent. one might even say we're, in a way, one in the same wavelength.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.

The point everybody is making here is that you are NOT using logic or reason.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The scientific method just uses the fact that perceptions are consistent among different persons, and that they yield repeatable outcomes. This, in turn, is an observation, not an assumption.

Something to consider, since this is a philosophical thread:

Even if perception and observation are wrong, they are still useful if they are wrong in the exact same way for every observer. The consistancy is what we are going for, not the absolute "truth value".

Also, all philosophies which depend on perception being false or unreliable are bankrupt on the face of it, because if you claim that perception is incorrect, any statements you make are also based on the same unreliable perception. Therefore, the statement "QM is false because it is based on unreliable perception" is logically invalid, because that philosophical position invalidates any and all statements about the "truth value" of an observation.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i can appreciate those sentiments, zero.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.

Actually, there is. Justification of logic is, in fact, a philosophical problem, whether you choose to admit it or not.

If you want to know inference is a valid perception because there are types of inferences that perceive an object exactly as it exists.

No, inferences do not "perceive" anything. People perceive things.

Inference can understand the relation between different phenomena and through understanding this relation something about a subtle phenomena can be understood through its relation to a gross phenomena.

No, inferences do not "understand" anything. People understand things.

For example, based visual perception a vase appears that it is not changing instant to instant. But from the point of view of logic it must be changing instant to instant. Why is this? Because if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent. If something is permenent and suddenly becomes permanent then you have a cause that arrises on its own. This violates cause and effect and those who accept this view have the burden of explaining why if cause and effect are not valid why do flowers not suddenly grow in the sky.

Simple attempts at the use of deduction do not in any way, shape or form justify its use.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it. That is all. There is no need for me to support logic or reason.

You also bear the responsibility to explain and rationalize your attack. I can say "The moon is made of green cheese. You are wrong to say otherwise.", and I have made an assertion. If that assertion is to be taken seriously, I must logically defend my point of view. There have been people who have been on the moon, and have found no green cheese. The moon does not appear to be green to any observer. The measurements of tidal forces and orbital mechanics show that a green-cheese moon would not be dense enough to behave in the way it does. Without a logical counter-argument, my position is properly ignored.



Where is your counter-argument? Where is the evidence or logical chain of thought that leads to your conclusions?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point everybody is making here is that you are NOT using logic or reason.

And that's another thing:

Protonman, you are not using anything that is even remotely recognizable as a "logic". You just keep stringing together statements that have nothing to do with one another (such as when you asserted the chain of implications:

"partless"-->"independence"-->"imperceptible"-->"acausal"

These things have nothing to do with each other! And yet you happily keep posting along as though you have stated some indisputable fact, and you make no attempt whatsoever to justify the claim. This has been typical of you since you arrived at Physics Forums.

When is it going to stop?

 

[phoenixthoth]

when is it going to stop?

the way things are going, never.

can i make a suggestion? :P

agree to disagre for now.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i can appreciate those sentiments, zero.

The only use of a thread like this is for me to clarify my own thinking and discussion skills...and it seems to be working rather well, don't you think?

For instance, protonman has been attacking a strawman, IMO. No scientist makes statements about a theory's absolute truth. Since that is the case, protonman's general position, "science cannot claim that QM is true" is a strawman, since science doesn't make that claim. What he would like to do, it seems, is claim that QM is invalid, without presenting anything to replace it. Since he hasn't presented a counter-theory, and concedes that QM makes accurate predictions, there is no logical reason for him to continue to attack QM, especially on the tenuous ground which he has chosen.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"The only use of a thread like this is for me to clarify my own thinking and discussion skills...and it seems to be working rather well, don't you think?"

yes, indeed, i would like to think so.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I attacked your view. It is up to you to defend it.

So far it has been quite a lousy attack.

If you want to know inference is a valid perception because there are types of inferences that perceive an object exactly as it exists.

You would need to prove this. Not only that, but you would definitely need to quote in detail what you mean here by "perceive", "object" and "exists", since your assertion cannot hold for the common notion of perception.

For example, based visual perception a vase appears that it is not changing instant to instant. But from the point of view of logic it must be changing instant to instant. Why is this? Because if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent.

Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

If something is permenent and suddenly becomes permanent then you have a cause that arrises on its own.

I guess you meant "non-permanent" in the fist one. Didn't you?

If so...

Unjustified assumption #2:
"the character of 'being a cause' arises with 'permanency'"

Unjustified assumption #3:
"Dynamical evolution of a system cannot render it permanent"

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.

This violates cause and effect and those who accept this view have the burden of explaining why if cause and effect are not valid why do flowers not suddenly grow in the sky. [/B]

Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit]

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by ahrkron
So far it has been quite a lousy attack.

ad hominem.



You would need to prove this. Not only that, but you would definitely need to quote in detail what you mean here by "perceive", "object" and "exists", since your assertion cannot hold for the common notion of perception.

why?

Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

so what if it's unjustified? aren't all axioms unjustified?

I guess you meant "non-permanent" in the fist one. Didn't you?

If so...

Unjustified assumption #2:
"the character of 'being a cause' arises with 'permanency'"

Unjustified assumption #3:
"Dynamical evolution of a system cannot render it permanent"

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.



Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit]

i like the counterexample attempt, lousy as it is.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Unjustified assumption #1:
"if something does not change (even for a moment), it becomes permanent"

By definition that which is impermanent is changeing every instant.

It needs to be said also that no definition of "permanent" was given.

A permanent phenomena is an existent phenomena that does not change instantaneously.

Unjustified assumption #4:
Violation of causality of the type "non-permanent transforms into permanent" allow for odd conclusions like the one provided for flowers in the sky.

If you accept that permanent phenomena can produce an effect you accept that a result can arise without a cause. IF this is so then you must explain why flowers do not arise in the sky suddenly or horns do not suddenly grow from my head. In other words, why is there a law of cause and effect.

[counterexample: self consistent systems can be developed in which causality is violated in restricted domains and which, nonetheless, display causal relations in many other realms; e.g., QM and its classical limit] [/B]

No cauality can never be violated in the physical world, by definition. All these ideas about time travel and string theory are mistaken. By definition a cause must preceed its result.

Look, I told you that I don't accept QM or anything after it. Why do you keep bringing it up. My arguments appeal to reality, the world and experience. This is the only thing we agree upon.

It is really frustrating talking to people who are so dense. You don't understand what I am saying so instead of asking you just come up with some pathetic attempt to refute it. Do you know how long I have been thinking over these concepts. For over 7 years I have been contemplating the meaning of impermanence and I still don't understand it that well. People spend their entire lives trying to understand this idea. It is extremely difficult to grasp. I have been contemplating physics since I was in high school. These ideas I have are the result of an intense amount of study. More importantly though I had teachers who understood what it means to think. Today there are very few great thinkers left. Even in your field, people like Einstein and Newton would be laughing at your work. Read the principa it is full of definitions. Read Einstein and you understand that his insights were based on logic and reasoning. He was one of the last great physicists because he knew how to think.

 

[phoenixthoth]

[zz)] [zz)] [zz)]

 

[Zero]

What we're probably all thinking right now is that instead of "contemplating" physics, you probably should have attempted to study it. That way, you might have some idea of what you are talking about.

 

[phoenixthoth]

hey, maybe you should be a PF mentor. oh yeah, you already are. (hint, hint)

homework is good.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
By definition that which is impermanent is changeing every instant.

That being the case, and given your assertion that "if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent", you still need to prove that:
1. nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time; and
2. The vase is one of those.

If you accept that permanent phenomena can produce an effect you accept that a result can arise without a cause.

Just to make sure, do you mean here "permanent" or "impermanent".

IF this is so then you must explain why flowers do not arise in the sky suddenly or horns do not suddenly grow from my head. In other words, why is there a law of cause and effect.

Let me rephrase what I said: assume for a moment that causality does not hold in all circumstances (forget about QM), this in itself does not imply that the universe would do every possible odd thing you can think of.

A simple example: we could perfectly imagin a world in which the result of coin-drops were acausal events (i.e., "really" random). That does not imply that elephants would fly in that world.

No cauality can never be violated in the physical world, by definition.

This is an issue in which you cannot make things to be as you wish "by definition". Unless of course, you have a different definition for "causality", "violated", "physical" or "world".

Causality is, in the end, the name of a feature that we observe on the behavior of the world, and it being violated or not can only be judged on the base of observation.

All these ideas about time travel and string theory are mistaken.

Probably, but I'm still eager to read your arguments to justify such a statement.

Look, I told you that I don't accept QM or anything after it. Why do you keep bringing it up.

I used it on its role as a formal system in which macroscopic causality can arise even when microscopically it is violated, to show that your argument was flawed (since it assumed that once causality is violated in the least, flowers should grow in the air).

As a more formal (and general) rebuttal, you can do a google search for "paraconsistent logic". On it, mutually inconsistent premises exist in a system that, nonetheless, is non trivial, in the sense that not all statements are provable in the system.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
My arguments appeal to reality, the world and experience. This is the only thing we agree upon.

The problem I see, and I think others do as well, with your position, is that it seems to stem from common sense positions about what reality "should" be like, including the unjustified extrapolation of what it does in the everyday-life size and energy scales to atomic and astronomic scales.

I don't doubt that you have studied Buddhist concepts in depth, but when you claim to have found mistakes in the way modern science interprets its data (and especially if you attempt to use a buddhist framework to straighten up their analysis), you need to do a proper translation of concepts between the two disciplines. Otherwise, no matter how deep the buddhist concept of dependence may be, it cannot yield any conclusion about the measurable concept of probability (and statistical independence, for instance).

It is really frustrating talking to people who are so dense.

We are not trying to be; but you need to concede that you have not made a great role explaining your method.

You don't understand what I am saying so instead of asking you just come up with some pathetic attempt to refute it.

Show were such attempt goes wrong then, and I'll tell you why I think it was ok.

Do you know how long I have been thinking over these concepts. For over 7 years I have been contemplating the meaning of impermanence and I still don't understand it that well. ...

Many people here have worked hard at understanding nature full time for longer than that. And believe me: being a scientist does mean that you do seriously care for understanding what you are doing. It is not just a matter of "plugging numbers" or "pushing buttons".

Please, spare us the talk about how difficult this is or for how long you have tried. Instead, try to show the fruits of that understanding in the form of well though arguments and flameless replies.

 

[protonman]

That being the case, and given your assertion that "if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent", you still need to prove that:
1. nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time; and
2. The vase is one of those.

In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest.

 

[cookiemonster]

Guess we should all just give up then.

cookiemonster

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest.

You are wrong again, my young friend. If you cannot trust your mind, then you cannot trust your mind to judge who is wiser than you and who is not. How can you trust what someone tells you, when you cannot even trust what your senses tell you?

Your "logic" negates itself rather neatly.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
You are wrong again, my young friend. If you cannot trust your mind, then you cannot trust your mind to judge who is wiser than you and who is not. How can you trust what someone tells you, when you cannot even trust what your senses tell you?

Your "logic" negates itself rather neatly.

I am not saying that you can not trust any minds. What I am saying is that there are certain phenomena which are evident to us such as cars, trees and people. These exist, no question. But there are more subtle levels of existence which are not directly accessable via the senses. Therefore we must rely on logic. For example, if we see smoke on a hill we can infer that there is fire. Although we can not see the fire we know it is there. This is a valid perception through inference.

 

[cookiemonster]

Which has what--nothing?--to do with Zero's point?

cookiemonster

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I am not saying that you can not trust any minds. What I am saying is that there are certain phenomena which are evident to us such as cars, trees and people. These exist, no question. But there are more subtle levels of existence which are not directly accessable via the senses. Therefore we must rely on logic. For example, if we see smoke on a hill we can infer that there is fire. Although we can not see the fire we know it is there. This is a valid perception through inference.

In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existence of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existence of things that have even less evidence to support their existence?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existence of anything at all.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existence of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existence of things that have even less evidence to support their existence?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existence of anything at all.

I'm not making anything up as I go along. Everything I have said is self-consistent. Furthermore, I said I do accept things like trees and cars. I do accept what is conventionally agreed upon by all. How can you say I don't accept anything when I said I accept the existence of smoke?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you are making things up as you go along. If you cannot trust the existence of what everone else agrees on, how can you assert the existence of things that have even less evidence to support their existence?

Again, by your own logic you cannot assert the existence of anything at all.

You amaze me as well as everyone here. How can no one criticize you for your statements. You say I don't accept anything. But in the post above I say I accept trees and such, no question. I go on to say that certain phenomena are not accesable via the sense and therefore we must rely on logic. The atom is a perfect example. It is beyond the range of the senses.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I go on to say that certain phenomena are not accesable via the sense and therefore we must rely on logic. The atom is a perfect example. It is beyond the range of the senses.

So, you do accept the existence of the atom? (it is a serious question, please answer).

 

[phoenixthoth]

BURN!

well done! :P

i believe the atom both exists and it does not. that is not a paradox, it is just difficult to understand with your mind, unless you're canute or someone.