Daniel Dennett

[PeterJ]

This has nothing to do with why Nagarjuna is ignored. He proves his point yet is ignored. A better reason would be that scientists often despise philosophy. . An even better reason is that they aren't interested in what Nagarjuna proves because it would rock the boat rather violently. Yet how can we ever determine the implications of his proof for physics if physicists aren't going to do the work. Actually some of them are, but it's only a handful as yet.

[Ophiolite]

The most prominent philosopher to have presented a solution for all metaphysical problems would be the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna, who provided the philosophical foundation for Middle Way Buddhism. He does so in the form of a logical proof. It's a nightmare to follow in detail but the result is straightforward.

Alright, I'll bite. It's a while since anyone justifiably insulted me.

 

Firstly, Nagarjuna is not ignored as you claim.

Secondly, his solutions are not as complete as you claim. (If they are, demonstrate it.)

Thirdly, any logical proof that is "a nightmare to follow" almost certainly contains flaws.

[Strange]

This has nothing to do with why Nagarjuna is ignored. He proves his point yet is ignored.

 

Maybe his "point" has nothing to do with science?

 

An even better reason is that they aren't interested in what Nagarjuna proves because it would rock the boat rather violently.

 

Can you explain in what way you think it would rock the boat?

 

Yet how can we ever determine the implications of his proof for physics if physicists aren't going to do the work.

 

Can you explain what you think the implications for physics are?

[PeterJ]

Hi Strange

 

Maybe his point does have something to do with science. There's only one way to find out.

 

His proof would rock the boat because he proves that his description of reality is the only one that is not logically absurd.

. .

The implications for physics are for physicists to work out. I wish they'd get on with it.

 

We need not argue about this. I'm not making a case for Nagarjuna, and I really don't want to argue as opposed to explore our disagreements. I'm making a case for education, for some exploration of what lies outside the box. You should be able to tell me exactly where Nagarjuna went wrong if he did. If you cannot do this then it perfectly possible that his philosophy and worldview is correct. Surely it would be better practice to falsify a theory than ignore it,

 

It could be argued that this would a job for philosophy and not physics, but I think we should forget all about these artificial barriers to knowledge. Knowledge is not divided up like university departments.

 

The question about implications for physics is a fair one. I explore it informally in the blogosphere. But only a physicist would dare risk saying anything much. I tried to explore the issue a couple times here but it was not a welcome topic of discussion, to put it mildly. There are physicists who work on this, however, if you look around.

 

For Nagarjuna it is more difficult to make a recommendation. I could recommend one or two Buddhist writers, but none that clearly explain simply what Nagarjuna;s work actually means in relation to science or western philosophy. Except me. But for an unaffiliated researcher it's difficult to do the research when it means raising the issues in science forums. It's not a topic anyone wants to discuss, even though it is, in my opinion, the most likely next hot topic for physics. .

 

. ,

Alright, I'll bite. It's a while since anyone justifiably insulted me.

 

Firstly, Nagarjuna is not ignored as you claim.

Secondly, his solutions are not as complete as you claim. (If they are, demonstrate it.)

Thirdly, any logical proof that is "a nightmare to follow" almost certainly contains flaws.

 

How many physcists understand his proof?. How many know it? How many bother to explore its ramifications? How many have published refutations or falsifications? How many students leave physics and philosophy courses with any knowledge of it? How much do you know about it?

 

His solution is complete. This is obvious from the form of his proof and its conclusion. If you can show that it is not then you should publish. Of course, it may not be obvious that the solution is correct,. although it was to me as soon as I came across it,

 

Your third point seems not worth answering. It would mean that a proof of E=Mc2 almost certainly contains flaws.

 

Its all very simple. N's proof refutes all positive metaphysical positions. That's it. In order to explore the implications for physics this is all we would need to know. How easy is that? But the proof requires the refutation of a long list of theories, and he does not waste words. If we wish to invalidate his proof we would have to do years of work. But for physics all that matters is his result, and this is easy to state. There is not only no evidence that this can be falsified in logic, but it is possible to show that it would be impossible to do so. So it is up to physics to test his result. If it cannotbe tested in physics then it might as well be true, for it works like a dream in philosophy.

Edited December 1, 2014 by PeterJ

[Strange]

Maybe his point does have something to do with science. There's only one way to find out.

 

Well, you seem to think it does. I just wondered why.

 

His proof would rock the boat because he proves that his description of reality is the only one that is not logically absurd.

 

And, presumably, you think that would somehow be in conflict with science. Could you explain why you think that?

 

The implications for physics are for physicists to work out. I wish they'd get on with it.

 

I find it slightly confusing that you think there are (profund?) implications for physics but aren't able to give even a hint as to what they are. If you don't have any idea what the implications for physics are, then maybe there aren't any?

 

We need not argue about this.

 

Indeed. I have nothing to argue about. I am just curious what the implications for physics might be (or what you think they might be).

 

I'm not making a case for Nagarjuna

 

Really? You have repeatedly referred to his philosophy and proof. I can't imagine you would do that if you didn't think it was correct.

 

and I really don't want to argue as opposed to explore our disagreements.

 

I'm not sure there is any disagreement. Just ignorance, on my part.

 

There are physicists who work on this, however, if you look around.

 

I would look if I knew what "this" was.

 

It's not a topic anyone wants to discuss, even though it is, in my opinion, the most likely next hot topic for physics.

 

OK. I am just trying to find out what this "topic" is. (Maybe I can work out an idea of the possible implications for myself.)

 

Your third point seems not worth answering. It would mean that a proof of E=Mc2 almost certainly contains flaws.

 

The proof of that is not a "nightmare to follow". It is pretty straightforward.

 

Its all very simple. N's proof refutes all positive metaphysical positions. That's it. In order to explore the implications for physics this is all we would need to know.

 

This may be the crux of my confusion. As I don't see how any metaphysical position can have any implications for physics, it isn't clear how refuting some or all of them can have any implications for physics either.

 

But for physics all that matters is his result, and this is easy to state.

 

Ah good...

 

Oh. Can you state it then?

 

So it is up to physics to test his result. If it cannotbe tested in physics then it might as well be true, for it works like a dream in philosophy

 

In order for it to be tested in physics, it needs to make quantifiable, measurable predictions. This is what I am trying to understand. What testable (by science) predictions does a philosophical idea make? How can these be quantified? What can be measured to test them? And so on.

[PeterJ]

Oh dear. You seem to think we are having an argument.

 

I stated his result above. All positive metaphysical positions are logically absurd. This implies that the universe is a unity. I have no intention of talking about the implications for physics here, since it will just become a pointless argument. I will just say that there are some. If you're interested then you can do the research. if you don't believe, that's fine. The point is that you wish to reject these ideas without understanding them, and this is the practice that I am complaining about.

[Strange]

Oh dear. You seem to think we are having an argument.

 

Er, what? When you said there was no need for an argument, I agreed. I have no idea why you thought it was an argument then and, as we have both agreed that we have nothing to argue about, why you still think it is an argument now. But never mind.

 

I stated his result above. All positive metaphysical positions are logically absurd.

 

OK. I didn't realise that was his "result". I thought it was just a general comment.

 

This implies that the universe is a unity.

 

I don't see how that follows. But maybe that isn't important.

 

Actually, I'm not quite sure what it means. Yes, the universe is a single thing. But that seems to be too trivially true to be what you are referring to. Are we talking about non-locality? Or mass-energy equivalence? Or ...

 

I have no intention of talking about the implications for physics here

 

That is very frustrating. Why bring it up if you are unwilling to explain or discuss it. I am always interested in where physics might be going next.

 

I will just say that there are some.

 

OK. I am just curious as to what they are (or what you think they might be). I am baffled by your refusal to expand on this. I assume it isn't actually of any significance, then.

 

If you're interested then you can do the research.

 

But I don't know what to research! Can you give me some hints? Who are the scientists who you mention?

 

What tests are or could be done? Anything ... ?

 

if you don't believe, that's fine. The point is that you wish to reject these ideas without understanding them, and this is the practice that I am complaining about.

 

What have I rejected? How can I reject it when I don't yet know what it is yet? You seem somewhat over-sensitive to non-existent criticism of your ideas.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

How many physcists understand his proof?. How many know it? How many bother to explore its ramifications? How many have published refutations or falsifications? How many students leave physics and philosophy courses with any knowledge of it?

 

How many? I have absolutely no idea. You asserted that his ideas were scarcely heeded. You did not, to my recollection, specify that this was by physicists. My cursory 'investigation' reveals that he is well thought of in philosophy circles, hence my point 1.

 

 

How much do you know about it?

Less than nothing, since what I imagine about it is likely false and therefore takes me below zero.

 

 

His solution is complete. This is obvious from the form of his proof and its conclusion.

It is obvious, it seems, to you. It does not seem obvious to most of the rest of the planet since it has not gained substantial currency. You have presented no abstract of his solution. You have given no clear citations that one might follow up on. You have simply made an unsubstantiated assertion. I responded in kind, but remind you that the onus is upon you to justify your claim.

 

 

Your third point seems not worth answering. It would mean that a proof of E=Mc2 almost certainly contains flaws.

You may disregard it in the same cavalier fashion with which you appear to have arrived at your conviction. (The proof of relativity theory and its adjuncts lies primarily in observation not in logic.)

 

 

Its all very simple. N's proof refutes all positive metaphysical positions.

View me as an ignoramus. You won't be far off the mark. I have no idea what is meant by a positive metaphysical position.

 

 

Its all very simple. N's proof refutes all positive metaphysical positions. That's it. In order to explore the implications for physics this is all we would need to know. How easy is that?

For me, currently impossible, since I have no idea what you are talking about.

[PeterJ]

Okay. Maybe this is my fault.

 

The thread is about Dan Dennett. I pointed out that he has solved no problems and that I cannot understand why he is admired other than for his prose. It would seem more sensible to me to admire people who made progress. I could have mentioned other names but I always think that Nagarjuna is the prime example of a success, since he offers the most comprehensive proof of how to solve philosophy of anyone I know. Francis Bradley gives the same proof, but in a less clear and less formal way.

 

I went on to say that this seems to be a matter of education. In western academia it is almost always assumed that philosophy is intractable and that nobody has ever solved its problems. This is easy to establish since there is a constant stream of books and articles published that begin by assuming that Nagarjuna's view and solution are wrong but offer no counter-argument or plausible view to put in its place,. and usually make no mention of it.

 

DD's book on consciousness is a perfect example. To many people it looks absurdly naïve, since he clearly has not done the research or, if he has, has chosen not to mention vast swathes of research and mountains of literature that are directly relevant to his ideas and the topic of the book. He may not think much of Nagarjuna's solution for consciousness and the mind-matter problem, but to ignore it reveals prejudice and incomprehension.

 

That's just one writer. But it is an epidemic. When scientists argue against God they never, in my experience, use the argument presented by Nagarjuna. Why not? It is overwhelming. But it is mysticism, so gets no attention. Again, I see this as an education issue. The early quantum pioneers were fascinated by the ideas coming out of mysticism, found them directly relevant to their work and often knew a lot about them. But then the shutters went up. These days ignorance is bliss. Lawrence Krauss even questions the value of doing philosophy so ignorant is he of its successes, and his view is widespread.

 

This all has something to do with the narrowness of the curriculum, it seems to me, since if just one good lecture per university course was spent on the philosophical position advanced by Nagarjuna (i.e. Middle Way Buddhism) then people wouldn't be able to get away with a book like Consciousness Explained. His readers would be asking him why he rejects Nagarjuna's metaphysics or fails to even mention it, when it could not be more directly relevant. Kant comes to the same philosophical; conclusion and he is supposed to be respectable, but he is also widely ignored. Anyone holding dangerous views like his is ignored. I hesitate to call it a conspiracy but it might as well be one.

 

I'm not sure I should be expected to do the work of google, but here's a few notes.

 

A metaphysical position or theory is a general theory of everything. It must be fundamental or it is incomplete.

 

A 'positive' metaphysical theory is a theory that is partial, extreme or one-sided. Metaphysical problems take the form, superficially at least, of dilemmas. They have two 'horns'. This may be something/nothing, mind/matter, existence/non-existence and so on.

 

When we ask a metaphysical question we find that we have to choose between two extreme answers, neither of which work. Anyone can verify this. It is, for instance, the entire justification for logical positivism. Nagarjuna shows that all these extreme do not work, in case there should be any doubt. He does this in order to persuade us to abandon them. The result is a 'neutral' position, one for which all extreme views are false, just as logic would suggest. In this way he explains two millennia of lack of progress in western metaphysics. It would be because his view is always rejected but never refuted.

 

One implication would be that extension is not fundamental. I always feel that this has some bearing on nonlocality, and it is something I wouldn't mind discussing. But that's one for another thread.

 

Please don't think I want to argue. It would be daft to argue before getting to the bottom of what we're arguing about. My point is about education, the narrowness of the curriculum and the poor scholarship of a certain professor. If he had put one sentence in his book giving the reasons why he feels it necessary to invent a different solution than endorse Nagarjuna's, which generically is 'nondualism', then I would have been happy. As it is he joins his mate Dawkins in the category of scholars who can't be bothered to do the work.

 

Physics loses much credibility and respect because of this partiality and narrow-mindedness. and I am regularly in conversations where people just laugh at it. I do not laugh at it. Physics is important, and there are some great thinkers working in it. But generally, as it is, it is stagnant and lost up-its-own-whotsit, and I cannot defend this approach.

 

To be fair, there is much conflicting nonsense talked about Nagarjuna, which can make him a difficult study. Many western commentators massively complicate his message, and tend to focus on the mechanics of his argument rather than all that matters, which is his result.

 

His result, that all positive meta[physical positions can be refuted, is the same as the one reached by Carnap, Russell, and so many others. But where they see a problem he turns it into a solution.

 

He proves that the Universe must be a unity according to logical analysis. A 'unity' would have no parts. The implications for physics can be explored by first developing the metaphysical scheme that is required, and then exploring what it says about the physical world that might be tested, or that at least might be interesting. .

 

The implications for physics are debatable. If we define physics strictly then I'm not sure what would count. But physicists spend a lot of their time speculating and writing about metaphysics. Theoretical physics, if it is ever to be fundamental, must actually be combined with metaphysics. But it is not difficult to work out some of them. The simplest and most bold way to sum up the main implication, which may or may not be one for physics, is to say that he proves that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens. On the face of it this is a daft idea, but if we are content to take things at face value we'll never get far in philosophy.

 

So, I suppose one prediction would be that it is impossible to prove that anything truly and independently exists. This is the case. Another might be that solipsism is unfalsifiable, which it is. Another would be that Materialism is false. This is a prediction for philosophy, not physics, but given how many scientists endorse this metaphysical position it might be considered an implication for science.

 

But I cannot start speculating about implications on a hostile physics forum. It is for physicists to do physics, If we don't know whether a metaphysical scheme grounded on an axiom of unity would have implications for physics then the best person to ask would be a physicist. If they cannot answer then they are ignorant of a large area of philosophy. But when others attempt it the result can be too woolly to be useful (Dancing Wu Li Master, Motorcycle Maintenance and the whole genre),

 

I hope this helps explain my point. There is no need to endorse my philosophical view, and I'm not arguing for it. I'm arguing for knowing what it is before rejecting it, and for taking it into account in books about consciousness.

 

 

 

 

.

 

.

Edited December 2, 2014 by PeterJ

[Strange]

Thanks for your long answer.

 

A 'positive' metaphysical theory is a theory that is partial, extreme or one-sided. Metaphysical problems take the form, superficially at least, of dilemmas. They have two 'horns'. This may be something/nothing, mind/matter, existence/non-existence and so on.

 

I think it is pretty obvious that any theory or belief that relies on such extremes is not going to be very realistic. So we may be in agreement (at least partly) on that.

 

Please don't think I want to argue.

 

I don't. (I'm not even sure why you keep going on about arguing. This isn't a Monty Python sketch.)

 

The implications for physics can be explored by first developing the metaphysical scheme that is required, and then exploring what it says about the physical world that might be tested, or that at least might be interesting.

 

I guess this is where I begin to get lost. As I say, I'm not sure what any metaphysical scheme has to do with physics. That is what I am trying to understand.

 

The implications for physics are debatable. If we define physics strictly then I'm not sure what would count. But physicists spend a lot of their time speculating and writing about metaphysics.

 

They may well do. And some play the piano or write poetry. None of which has anything to do with physics.

 

Theoretical physics, if it is ever to be fundamental, must actually be combined with metaphysics.

 

Can you explain why you think that?

 

But it is not difficult to work out some of them. The simplest and most bold way to sum up the main implication, which may or may not be one for physics, is to say that he proves that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens.

 

That is a pretty common idea. I don't see what its relevance to physics is, though. Could you expand on that a bit?

 

On the face of it this is a daft idea, but if we are content to take things at face value we'll never get far in philosophy.

 

True. And one of the strengths of philosophy is that it is all about questioning ideas and assumptions.

 

So, I suppose one prediction would be that it is impossible to prove that anything truly and independently exists. This is the case. Another might be that solipsism is unfalsifiable, which it is. Another would be that Materialism is false. This is a prediction for philosophy, not physics, but given how many scientists endorse this metaphysical position it might be considered an implication for science.

 

Yes, they are all about philosophy. I still fail to see any connection to physics. Apart from the fact that someone could think that there is no point doing anything (including physics) if "nothing is real".

 

But it makes no difference to physics. We are still able to make observations, create models, test them and produce useful results. The underlying nature of reality (and whether such a thing exists or not) makes no difference. I can believe in solipsism (and that therefore Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain only exist in my head) but that doesn't stop my non-existent computer working (and allowing me to have a non-existent conversation with a non-existent PeterJ).

 

But I cannot start speculating about implications on a hostile physics forum.

 

That is disappointing. This has turned into another thread where you say something interesting and then refuse to discuss it.

 

I hope this helps explain my point.

 

A little. You seem to think that "the nature of reality" should have some implications for physics? But those implications are either unknown or too sensitive to discuss (you seem to oscillate between the two positions).

[Ophiolite]

Well, Strange has pretty thoroughly echoed my own thoughts - or since he got in first, I suppose I'm echoing his, including thanks for the full reply. I'll emphasise a couple of things that seem important to me:

 

• As someone who dabbles in reading a little of the Greek philosophers and not much more I find it astounding that anyone would think that dichotomies are a good place to be.
• Whether or not anything actually happens, things appear to happen and it is upon that appearance that we act, whether in physics, business, or life in general. I don't see answers to the "great questions" being arrived at in my lifetime, so I spend little time contemplating them. They are like galaxies that have been expanded for ever beyond my horizon.

This isn't a Monty Python sketch

Is that why I don't get a royalty cheque?

[PeterJ]

Yeah, quite right. Maybe I saw hostility when it wasn't meant,

 

The problem here is that you 're asking me to explain things that take a long time. It's a bit like someone came here and asked for an explanation of entanglement. You'd send them off to read a proper explanation.

 

But the point about implications is a bit different. Here goes.

 

Nondualism, which is the 'ism' used to describe the doctrine of the late Upanishads and mysticism generally (Taoism, Sufism, The American transcendentalists etc) is the claim that both dualism and monism is false. By reduction the world would be a unity such that all distinctions would be emergent of epiphenomenal. Strange calls this 'not realistic' but I don't yet know why. It is a claim about what is real and what is not. Francis Bradley, who argues for the same view, calls his famous essay 'Appearance and Reality', which is good clue as to what it claims.

 

Usually it is considered unlikely or even impossible that a metaphysical theory could have testable implications for physics, but the issues are subtle. One question would be, where does physics stop and metaphysic begin? Another would be, what would qualify as a scientific test? For instance, we now have something called 'scientific consciousness studies', and yet there is no scientific test for consciousness. The discipline studies a phenomenon whose existence cannot be tested.

 

Of course it can be tested, but not for anyone who takes a strict view of what constitutes a scientific test. Still, we have a myriad of first-person reports, and statistical evidence of this kind is often considered scientific. So is consciousness studies scientific or not? Many people feel it is not. But some feel it is. So whether a theory of consciousness, or a theory that includes consciousness, could ever be scientifically testable may be a matter of opinion or definitions. I do not care about this technicality, since common sense and some knowledge of experimental work is usually enough for judging whether a test is believable or useful, but some people think this really matters, and I image some of them are here. .

 

What we see in consciousness studies is a complete lack of progress on the central problem. This would be because a fundamental theory MUST be metaphysical. Accordingly, it has proved impossible to explain consciousness with a non-reductive theory. The idea that it must be taken as a primitive, as if it fundamental, is now common in literature. David Chalmers, who I would rate a lot higher than DD, has spotted this problem and suggested an approach called 'naturalistic dualism, whereby we would study consciousness scientifically and abandon any hope of a proper solution, since to find one we would have to solve metaphysics. Theoretical physics faces exactly the same problem. It is not really a problem, but it's a problem if we don't want this to be true.

 

Nagarjuna solves metaphysics. Every problem evaporates. His solution is a whisker away from Chalmer's 'double-aspect theory of information' and I have never head Chalmers mention his name even once. When I complain about poor scholarship, it is not aimed anyone posting here but at professionals like Dennett and Chalmers.

 

The solution requires the universe is a unity. So does this idea have implication fro physics? I'd answer yea, but I can see some valid objections. But if we change the question to: Does this idea help us make sense of the discoveries of physics, then the answer must be yes. There are plenty of physicists who see an interpretation for QM in this metaphysical view.

 

I'm unsure of what those implications are exactly. They are completely consistent with physics, and it could not be otherwise if the universe is reasonable since the underlying 'theory' is provable in logic, but it would take a physicist to answer the question reliably.

 

Here re some implications, scientific or not.

 

The universe would be a unity

All division and separation are illusory or conceptual

The manifest universe of the BIg Bang is epiphenomenal

No substance is fundamental

Time and space would be conceptual imputations

Distance would be arbitrary

Materialism (and Idealism) would be false

 

Hell, got to go now. I'll come back with a longer list if it's interesting. I didn't quite get to physics but it's a start. Perhaps the falsity of Materialism might count as a prediction for science. I wouldn't call it one, but a materialist scientist might see it differently. This is the sort of thing I'm exploring.

[Strange]

The problem here is that you 're asking me to explain things that take a long time. It's a bit like someone came here and asked for an explanation of entanglement. You'd send them off to read a proper explanation.

 

I would give them an explanation at the level I was able, and that I thought was appropriate for them, and suggest places to more information. (Others here would do a far better job than me in this case!)

 

Strange calls this 'not realistic' but I don't yet know why.

 

I don't fully understand all your terminology (knowing little about the subject) but I was calling the sort of (false) dichotomies that you are opposed to unrealistic. I thought that was something we agreed on. But maybe I understand even less of what you say than I think.

 

I am not particularly interested in philosophy (if you will forgive the traditional British understatement) but was very interested in the idea that there might be implications for science.

 

It is a claim about what is real and what is not.

 

Which, as I say, has nothing to do with (modern) science.

 

One question would be, where does physics stop and metaphysic begin?

 

I would have thought that was pretty simple: objective, quantifiable predictions from models, which can be tested against measurements. (That is off the top of my head, so I'm sure it could be improved...)

 

Another would be, what would qualify as a scientific test?

 

Objective, quantifiable predictions from models, which can be tested against measurements.

 

I am going to skip over the stuff about consciousness mainly because it has nothing to do with physics. (And also because it might lead to an argument! I see no great mysteries beyond the bounds of science there.)

 

Theoretical physics faces exactly the same problem.

 

I can see how the concept of consciousness can appear slippery because it is ill-defined and hard to quantify. But ... again ... I don't see how any of that relates to physics.

 

Does this idea help us make sense of the discoveries of physics, then the answer must be yes. There are plenty of physicists who see an interpretation for QM in this metaphysical view.

 

Maybe. But (with a few exceptions) interpretations of quantum mechanics are not physics.

 

The universe would be a unity

All division and separation are illusory or conceptual

The manifest universe of the BIg Bang is epiphenomenal

No substance is fundamental

Time and space would be conceptual imputations

Distance would be arbitrary

Materialism (and Idealism) would be false

 

 

Some of these clearly have no connection to physics (or science in general). For example, "materialism is false". Meh. So what. There are many scientists who believe that already. (Some days I do and some days I don't But then I am not a scientist, so it doesn't matter.)

 

"Distance is arbitrary" is so vague as to be meaningless. It could be consistent with general relativity or it could be an anti-scientific statement that all our measurements are wrong. Who knows.

 

I didn't quite get to physics but it's a start.

 

Indeed. For someone who is so convinced that there must be implications for physics, you seem to be struggling to identify them.

[PeterJ]

There you go. This is what I meant by a hostile reception. I'm sure you think you're being quite friendly, Strange, but from here it looks like you're just trying to waste my time.

 

Do you want to talk about this or not. Never mind our English understatement. Either you're interested or you're not. .

 

Do you not see that if you know nothing about metaphysics you can know nothing about its implications for physics?

 

Do you read my words? It appears from your comments that you do not. I am extremely careful with them.

 

If you cannot follow me up to this point then I can only suggest googllng some of the words.

 

I'm not being unfriendly, just practical. We haven't even got to first base yet.

[Strange]

There you go. This is what I meant by a hostile reception.

 

I am sorry you perceive it that way. It isn't intended. I'm not sure what to do about that. (Apart from stop asking questions and I don't want to do that.)

 

Do you not see that if you know nothing about metaphysics you can know nothing about its implications for physics?

 

Well, quite. That is sort of why I was hoping that some who does know could explain it.

 

Maybe we can make progress if we stick with one point you have made a couple of times: materialism. Do you think that this philosophical view (or its disproof, if such were possible) has any implications for science?

[Ophiolite]

There you go. This is what I meant by a hostile reception.

 

No. Strange did not give you a hostile reception. I am now giving you a hostile reception.

 

If you think questioning, with a view to improving understanding, or to highlight weaknesses in an argument is hostile, then you really should not be participating in a discussion on a discussion forum.

 

If you think taking the time to ask a series of pertinent questions, while fully admitting ones own ignorance, shows disinterest, then you really should not be participating in discussion on a discussion forum.

 

Strange has taken a friendly, balanced, thoughtful approach to his questioning an observations. He has ignored the persistent refusal on your part to come to the point. I have seen Strange being hostile. Believe me, such is not the case here.

 

If you are serious about having a discussion I suggest you lose the appearance of paranoia and follow Strange's lead.

[PeterJ]

I find this quite confusing. I've tried to explain, which of course I cannot do all at once, and you come back at me with line-by-line counter-arguments. I spend a long time writing posts and then you tell that you have no interest in the topic ("to 'to put it mildly"). This tells me I'm wasting my time.

 

It is common to find physicists saying that distance is arbitrary. It is a profound claim, so it seemed worth putting this in the list of implications. Yet you reject this as too vague to mean anything. If it is, and perhaps you're right, then one has to wonder why physicists bother saying it.

 

I can't explain anything if every sentence is questioned. And of course I'm struggling to clearly identity these implications myself. , I was hoping to get some help here. I know the implications, but it would be debatable which ones are relevant to physics, and it may depend on which physicist we ask and where they place their boundaries. . .

 

I'm happy to call this all my fault, but even so I see no way forward. Let's go about our business and put it down to experience.

 

If you want the full story and a less off-the-cuff explanation then I can PM a link or two, but I don't think you'll be able to grasp what I'm saying without more of a grounding in philosophy, and I cannot write a book on the forum. Much of what I'm saying is uncontentious in philosophy and well discussed.

 

I suspect that the idea that all extreme metaphysical theories are false can mean nothing, or must seem ad hoc, unless we have already established that none of them work. Then we see what the problem is and thus the need for such a bold solution. So maybe this discussion can only work where a person has an interest in both physics and metaphysics. That would seem very likely.

 

Anyway, sorry I couldn't finds a way to communicate. No point in us getting any more riled up. I feel my point about Dennett has been made and he was supposed to be the topic, so thanks for the chat and let's agree to differ.

 

 

 

 

 

. .

Edited December 3, 2014 by PeterJ

[Strange]

I find this quite confusing. I've tried to explain, which of course I cannot do all at once, and you come back at me with line-by-line counter-arguments.

 

I am not presenting counter-arguments. I am just commenting and attempting to clarify.

 

I spend a long time writing posts and then you tell that you have no interest in the topic ("to 'to put it mildly"). This tells me I'm wasting my time.

 

If I had no interest, I wouldn't be asking.

 

It is common to find physicists saying that distance is arbitrary.It is a profound claim, so it seemed worth putting this in the list of implications. Yet you reject this as too vague to mean anything. If it is, and perhaps you're right, then one has to wonder why physicists bother saying it.

 

I didn't reject it; sorry if I gave that impression. I just pointed out that such a simple statement is ambiguous, but could be correct for some interpretations. I can imagine that physicists would say that distance is relative, or observer dependent. Or that the units of measurement are arbitrary. But it isn't clear exactly what you mean by "distance is arbitrary" without more context (such as a reference to a physicist using the term).

 

If you want the full story and a less off-the-cuff explanation then I can PM a link or two

 

Why not post them here (I have PMs disabled because this is a discussion forum).

 

Much of what I'm saying is uncontentious in philosophy and well discussed.

 

I'm sure that is true. But, as I say, it is the implications for physics that interest me.

 

No point in us getting any more riled up.

 

Well, I'm not riled up. And I'm not sure why you are. I am walking on eggshells now, trying not to upset you further.

 

I feel my point about Dennett has been made and he was supposed to be the topic, so thanks for the chat and let's agree to differ.

 

I have no idea what we differ about. I am just trying to explore the idea of metaphysics having implications for science. It is a little frustrating that (once again) you seem unwilling to discuss a topic that you brought up. Last time you brought something up and said it was off-topic, I started a new thread because I thought it was an interesting point. Would you like me to do that again?

 

Could you at least answer the question about materialism: do you think that the correctness or otherwise of this philosophical position has implications for physics? I suspect (but I don't know) that this could be a good starting point for me (and maybe you?) to get a clearer idea about the implications for physics you think may exist. And then have an interesting discussion about it.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Strange

[PeterJ]

No. I don't understand what's going on either. But I am well used to it. There is a vast chasm that divides our two different ways of thinking, and in my experience it is quite impossible to cross it from my side, only from yours. That is, nothing I say will help much unless you are seriously interested in the issues and a lot more than most people. The trouble is that you're asking only about the scientific issues, and from my side of the fence these are not even important, and cannot be grasped without some understanding of metaphysics and the meaning of Nagarjuna's argument. I cannot convey this on an internet forum, I have learnt over time. The only way any of this will ever makes sense if you do your own research.

 

So it's best to leave it. It's not Nagarjuna you would need to understand, it's metaphysics. To someone who understands metaphysics it is easy to explain Nagarjuna and the implications of his philosophy. But to explain him to someone with no such understanding would be like explaining physics to someone who knows no mathematics.

 

This is something I've only just fully realised, although the evidence of past discussions should have made it obvious long ago.

 

I should have complained about Dan Dennett's ignorance of metaphysics and the education system that caused it, and not Buddhism. That would have saved us both a lot of trouble.

 

I'd like to stop here if that's okay. I'll just say a few words about your final question and disappear.

 

It's a question I would like to be able answer. I have an opinion,. but there are some technical issues involved. The space-time continuum would be a conceptual fiction, and the mathematical continuum we use for physics would not be the real thing. Hermann Weyl, no slouch as a physicist, discusses this topic at length in Das Kontiinuum and arrives at Nagarjuna;s view. Space and time would be not really real, nor, by implication, any phenomenon subject to it.

 

Is this a prediction for physics? It would mean that it would be impossible to empirically demonstrate or discover that any extended phenomenon is real, substantial, self-subsistent. This would include galaxies, human bodies and Higgs bosons. What would be real would be what Weyl calls the 'intuitive' continuum, the empirical continuum of experience.

 

Most of the implications are negative, and I don't know if negative implications are allowed. It would be impossible to demonstrate that materialism is true, and this seems like it might count as a testable prediction. Or is it just a hostage to fortune? Materialism is metaphysical theory anyway, and refutable as such, so logic has always predicted the impossibility of proving it. Nagarjuna just made this more clear.

 

One prediction would be that physics, which is to say empirical observation, can never falsify the Buddhist worldview. Whatever the Buddha and Nagarjuna say about the world, and they said a great deal, the evidence will be consistent with it. This would mean that no competing theory or worldview can be proved or verified, since no fact could ever contradict it and logic already endorses it. Is that a prediction? Or can it be dismissed as meaning only that Buddhist doctrine is metaphysical?

 

These things are complicated, and I could not just write of shopping list of predictions.

 

Thanks for the chat and sorry it didn't go well. Let's call it a misunderstanding. I didn't come here to advertise so I won't put up a link. But I could suggest visiting Ulrich Mohrhoff's blog or site for an example of how physics and Nagarjuna can be reconciled. His book on the topic is readable online, and the relevant stuff is mostly contained in just one chapter. He refers to the Upanishadic view, but it's the same thing. Schrodinger is also good on this relationship, My blog is called the World Knot if you can track it down, but I say little about this particular issue since I'm still exploring it.

 

Cheers

Pete

 

 

. .

 

.

Edited December 3, 2014 by PeterJ

[Strange]

I'd like to stop here if that's okay

 

Well, I can't stop you stopping, obviously. But I am disappointed. (And a little puzzled as to why you think you need to.)

 

I'll just say a few words about your final question and disappear.

 

It's a question I would like to be able answer. I have an opinion,. but there are some technical issues involved. The space-time continuum would be a conceptual fiction, and the mathematical continuum we use for physics would not be the real thing. Hermann Weyl, no slouch as a physicist, discusses this topic at length in Das Kontiinuum and arrives at Nagarjuna;s view. Space and time would be not really real, nor, by implication, any phenomenon subject to it.

 

You see, that is why I think this is an interesting discussion. I think I (and many scientists) would agree with much of what you say there. Which is why I was pursuing this line of thought.

 

Is this a prediction for physics? It would mean that it would be impossible to empirically demonstrate or discover that any extended phenomenon is real, substantial, self-subsistent. This would include galaxies, human bodies and Higgs bosons.

 

And, again, I largely agree with this. Well, some of it ...

 

Most of the implications are negative, and I don't know if negative implications are allowed.

 

Do you mean not allowed in science or not allowed on the forum?

 

It would be impossible to demonstrate that materialism is true, and this seems like it might count as a testable prediction. Or is it just a hostage to fortune? Materialism is metaphysical theory anyway, and refutable as such, so logic has always predicted the impossibility of proving it. Nagarjuna just made this more clear.

 

That is interesting. I was always under the impression that materialism (and any other philosophical position) is not refutable (nor provable). As you are unwilling to discuss this further I will have to remain under that impression.

 

One prediction would be that physics, which is to say empirical observation, can never falsify the Buddhist worldview. Whatever the Buddha and Nagarjuna say about the world, and they said a great deal, the evidence will be consistent with it. This would mean that no competing theory or worldview can be proved or verified, since no fact could ever contradict it and logic already endorses it. Is that a prediction? Or can it be dismissed as meaning only that Buddhist doctrine is metaphysical?

 

 

While I agree with that. I don;t really think it is a prediction in the scientific sense. (Neither would I "dismiss" it.) But what it says is that the subject is not one amenable to scientific investigation (because it doesn't lend itself to quantifiable predictions and objective measurements.

 

These things are complicated, and I could not just write of shopping list of predictions.

 

I wouldn't expect you to. I was interested in the more general implications for science and, as an extension of that, perhaps getting an understanding of what you think "science" is and does.

 

Thanks for the chat and sorry it didn't go well.

 

The only reason it "didn't go well" is because you refuse to discuss anything and because you appear to think any question or comment at all is some sort of personal attack.

 

I didn't come here to advertise so I won't put up a link.

 

People put links to further information here all the time. It isn't "advertising". I think you are being ridiculously coy.

 

But I could suggest visiting Ulrich Mohrhoff's blog or site for an example of how physics and Nagarjuna can be reconciled.

 

I'll provide the link for you: http://thisquantumworld.com/wp/

(See, the world hasn't ended.)

 

My blog is called the World Knot if you can track it down, but I say little about this particular issue since I'm still exploring it.

http://theworldknot.wordpress.com/

[DevilSolution]

Philosophy tells you "who" you are, science tells you "what" you are and you tell yourself "why" you are. Nauture is god and science thy bible.

 

They are my favourite dennet quotes, dont quote me on them though.

Edited December 12, 2014 by DevilSolution

[Vexen]

Philosophy tells you "who" you are, science tells you "what" you are and you tell yourself "why" you are. Nauture is god and science thy bible.

 

They are my favourite dennet quotes, dont quote me on them though.

I don't know "why" I am.

[DevilSolution]

I don't know "why" I am.

 

If you have no purpose you wouldnt exist.

[whiskers]

I see a 3-stage model of reality. Somebody please point out to me who has better/best explained this and what it is called.

 

1) solipsism - there is no way to demonstrate using only experiences, measurements, and logic that the world exists. One can quietly accept this or scoff e.g. "that is not *worth* accepting" but it cannot be refuted or denied.

2) objective world - where science applies - the experiences and measurements are correlated resulting in mathematical laws.

3) other minds - you can accept the reality of the outer world, and deduce physical laws to your heart's content, but you won't end up with proof ( and arguably more importantly, even evidence ) that other minds exist. Particularly if you are confident in the ability of physical laws to explain the phenomena around you, even the behaviors and reports of your neighbor.

 

I note that the New Atheists and the other Materialists tend most of the time to ignore, deny, or just disregard that 2 and 3 are different. Why do they not simply say that neurology determines human behavior? Isn't that what occam's razor requires, rather than saying either that neurology determines mind *and* behavior, or neurology determines mind which then determines behavior in a way no different from what simple physics would describe?

 

If consciousness doesn't *do* anything, that means there is no evidence for it.