Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
In truth I do not think Buddhism is at odds with science. In the places science is at odds with buddhism I say lets give science some more time and it will come around... .
What you said about the quantum cosmology I agree.
The problem you describe is a practical one, not a fundamental one. You refer to the validity of the tool, in this case the ruler. The validity is a measure of how accurately a tool measures what it is supposed to measure.
If the human is a different height at different times of day, then we need specify at what time of day to make measurements (same for anything else which might influence height), so we can standardise things. If the ruler changes length with temperature and pressure then we can measure this expansion and accordingly change our height measurements, or get a ruler that does not change with temperature/pressure.
We have measured the earth to arbitrary precision, and the height of our hypothetical man. Increasing the accuracy of our measurement will not change the fact the earth is roughly oblate spheroid (i get the impression you may enjoy the maths of chaos theory, which effectively states there is no end to the precision of the actual shape of the earth, similar to how you describe anatta). Also, by making our ruler more and more accurate what new things are we learning. What more do we know by saying a person is 1.749436398304m tall compared with 1.7494m tall. Nothing of practical use - the precision is then arbitrary.
I am not sure anymore but I think we were discussing what is scientific fact and its relation to what is 'truth'?
I think the issue was that you claimed that measurements are objective to the person doing the measuring and I claimed it was not.
I think my point was not whether it is usefull or not to be able to measure a person in 50 or 10 decimals or if we can define a function to approximate a persons height over time but that:
1. If we can not measure a persons length EXACTLY. There is no way to conjecture what you said that there is a ACTUAL height of that person. That would only constitute a belief on the part of the person who says it.
2. Scientific fact and thus scientific truth changes over time due to changes of the method and changes to the tools we posess.
Well one of the scriptures is the one I quoted from Udana. As you can see all things we can think of are considered created. And thus not Nibbana. That was what I though you might rebuke. That even Nibbana is a man made concept and thus according to the definition NOT Nibbana. But I guess that is too trivial a paradox?
/Victor
One may escape the paradox if one considers nirvana not to be a man made concept. I'm not even sure nirvana is a concept at all...
Well as soon as we think about it or speak about it or write about it...it is instantly a man made concept... see?
But I think you are right on the whole. There is no real problem. It only seems that way.
I would rather say that it was A scientific method that predated todays. I hope you agree that even todays method is prone to change? And thus the results produced will change over time ...? Such as measurements...? (See above and below)
When would you say that the Scientific method as you see it came into practise? Just for the sake of argument.
/Victor
I disagree: the Greeks relied on inductive reasoning, which is why their maths was so good, but eschewed deductive reasoning which is the linchpin of science. But yes, it is quite possible that another method for knowing objective reality will supersede the scientific method.
You are problably right about the Greeks. I had not thought of that. But I think as you say the principal is valid. That the method may and probably will change. Which was my real point.
According to yesterdays calibration the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall. According to a later calibration and more precise measurement he was 190.067 cm tall. But what is he actually? What is the truth?
In this case the only thing left to be taken as a truth is what we at the moment are convinced is the truth. That is first the Hulk was 190.1 cm tall and then he was 190.67 cm tall. This is the position of Buddhism. /Victor
This is the position of science also.
Ah good! Then we do agree on this point. That worldly truth seen in Buddhism as well as science is an illusion? That is created in the mind? Because the thruth of science changed when the method changed?
BUT that communal fact would never have gained credibility unless the individual scientists were CONVINCED that the measurements were true.
So mutual consensus first requires individual conviction.
And also after a fact is acertained the laymen will BELIVE in its value not knowing precisely how science works and will be happy with that.
In buddhism to get somewhere belief is not enough conviction from personal experience is required every step of the way.
/Victor
In western thought, Kant made a distinction between phenomena and noumena; the knowable world of our senses and the unknowable world as it really is, respectively. Kant reasoned that we can never know the world as it really is as we can only know the world through our senses, which will always be flawed to some degree. We can only arrive at greater approximations of noumena. Where we seem to differ is that I believe (and it is only a belief) that there is a noumena, an objective reality outside ourselves which will continue to exist even if no-one is there to witness it. You seem to be suggesting there is only phenomena and the universes existence is contingent upon something witnessing it.
No I too think there is the world of noumena but as Kant says there can be no theories about it. So for us it is not possible to believe in it or not or actually say anything about it!
What (I think) Buddhism says is that the world of the Objectiv is only viewable by those that have attained Arahantship.
What I am saying is that all we can observe is floating and changing because the subjective view of the people quantifying the observations is changing all the time. This is the very nature of the Ego.
I think the fact that PEOPLE make measurements and the tools for making these mesurements. The measurements are flawed from the beginning. Flawed in the sense that it is not possible to say that these measurements is the OBJECTIVE (noumena).
And about your question about Chaos. Yes I love all kind of maths because of its perfect nature and close relation to philosophy. And chaos theory was more or less orgasmic. .
personally, I words as 'better' 'worse' 'good' 'evil' just don't give me a nice feeling
Sorry about the wording in the header...but
They are just words, words, words...
:crazy:
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Neither science nor Buddhism explains the beginning of the universe but causation is something both recognise. Therefore neither posit a first cause. There could be an infinite amount of big bangs going off and if so then what we think of as the universe is just something that is charactoristic of the way the universe goes.
Also both science and Buddhism share the same goal of clearing away ignorance.
I don't even see how they have been contradictory.
You need to make a distinction between faith or the normal sort, and religious faith. Putting faith in scientists isn't the same as putting faith in the Pope for example. Scientists claim no higher affinity with the intangible. They just use scientific methods to find things out, for your convenience. Be grateful. The Pope, who has been officially infallible since 1870, claims correspondence with the divine. He asserts the unprovable. However, with science, you have the option to research the facts yourself. If you had a better grasp on general knowledge you would understand why the earth revolves around it's axis. Unfortunately though, you can't just check what happens after you die. No one knows. Not the Buddha. Not the Pope. No one. That's the difference. Roughly.
On another note; do you actually reject science as a whole? If so, I find that really incredible, almost impossible to believe.
You need to make a distinction between faith or the normal sort, and religious faith. Putting faith in scientists isn't the same as putting faith in the Pope for example.
We are discussing Buddhism how did the Pope get into this. I never claimed that the pope is a better option than science.
They just use scientific methods to find things out, for your convenience. Be grateful.
Er... why should I be grateful? They get paid just like the next man right? In the case of government funded research I guess the scientists should be grateful I pay their vages?
If you had a better grasp on general knowledge you would understand why the earth revolves around it's axis.
First of all drop the droll attitude dude because you have no idea what my grasp is on general knowledge and second of all nobody knows WHY the earth revolves around its axis. But modern Science can give a good approximation of HOW it does it.
Unfortunately though, you can't just check what happens after you die. No one knows. Not the Buddha. Not the Pope. No one. That's the difference. Roughly.
It is ridiculous to try to defend the scientific method and then claim that nobody knows a specific thing (such as what happens after death).
How would you even go about proving such a claim? It is impossible.
On another note; do you actually reject science as a whole? If so, I find that really incredible, almost impossible to believe.
I do not reject science at all. Actually I am pretty fond of Science. I reject the ignorant attitude that everything must be valued through the eyes of science to be valid. This is actually not a stance taken by those I consider true scientists.
Why can't I delete or edit thse posts? When I do I'm told that the system cannot find the discussion. Anyway, very sorry for the double post. Technology eh.
Oh no. The edit did work after a delay. Total confusion. Here's what I meant to post.
---"In western thought, Kant made a distinction between phenomena and noumena; the knowable world of our senses and the unknowable world as it really is, respectively. Kant reasoned that we can never know the world as it really is as we can only know the world through our senses, which will always be flawed to some degree. We can only arrive at greater approximations of noumena. Where we seem to differ is that I believe (and it is only a belief) that there is a noumena, an objective reality outside ourselves which will continue to exist even if no-one is there to witness it. You seem to be suggesting there is only phenomena and the universes existence is contingent upon something witnessing it...
... I too think there is the world of noumena but as Kant says there can be no theories about it. So for us it is not possible to believe in it or not or actually say anything about it!"
I am confused as to who said this but feel it is not quite right, and in an interesting way. Nyanaponika Thera writes that in Buddhist phenomenology the term dhamma, which would include all mental and corporeal ‘things’ or ‘thing-events’, may be rendered as ‘phenomenon’ just as long as this term is not thought of as implying a correlative ‘noumenon’. In his Abhidhamma Studies - Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time, he writes,
‘Though Nibbana …, does in fact appear quite often in the Dhammasangani, it should be noted that: (1) In all cases it is merely mentioned without any further explanation beyond the classificatory heading under which it appears, and so it differs in that respect from the other "things," to all of which a definition is added; (2) the classifications of Nibbana are all negative in character. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that Nibbana is definitely termed a dhamma, …’
So on this view Nibbana may be thought of as a phenomenon without a noumenon. Kant came so close but didn't quite reach the Buddhist view. Hegel took his ideas on and came even closer. Still, it is impressive that Kant figured out that there must be an original phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. It shows the power of logic to point us in the right direction.
Comments
This thread is not about which is better. It is about what is illusion or not.
I will answer after supper today at the latest.
Thanks
Victor.
In truth I do not think Buddhism is at odds with science. In the places science is at odds with buddhism I say lets give science some more time and it will come around...
What you said about the quantum cosmology I agree.
/Victor
I think the issue was that you claimed that measurements are objective to the person doing the measuring and I claimed it was not.
I think my point was not whether it is usefull or not to be able to measure a person in 50 or 10 decimals or if we can define a function to approximate a persons height over time but that:
1. If we can not measure a persons length EXACTLY. There is no way to conjecture what you said that there is a ACTUAL height of that person. That would only constitute a belief on the part of the person who says it.
2. Scientific fact and thus scientific truth changes over time due to changes of the method and changes to the tools we posess.
/Victor
But I think you are right on the whole. There is no real problem. It only seems that way. You are problably right about the Greeks. I had not thought of that. But I think as you say the principal is valid. That the method may and probably will change. Which was my real point.
Ah good! Then we do agree on this point. That worldly truth seen in Buddhism as well as science is an illusion? That is created in the mind? Because the thruth of science changed when the method changed? No I too think there is the world of noumena but as Kant says there can be no theories about it. So for us it is not possible to believe in it or not or actually say anything about it!
What (I think) Buddhism says is that the world of the Objectiv is only viewable by those that have attained Arahantship.
What I am saying is that all we can observe is floating and changing because the subjective view of the people quantifying the observations is changing all the time.
This is the very nature of the Ego.
I think the fact that PEOPLE make measurements and the tools for making these mesurements. The measurements are flawed from the beginning. Flawed in the sense that it is not possible to say that these measurements is the OBJECTIVE (noumena).
And about your question about Chaos. Yes I love all kind of maths because of its perfect nature and close relation to philosophy. And chaos theory was more or less orgasmic.
/Victor
They are just words, words, words...
:crazy:
Also both science and Buddhism share the same goal of clearing away ignorance.
I don't even see how they have been contradictory.
Scientists claim no higher affinity with the intangible. They just use scientific methods to find things out, for your convenience. Be grateful. The Pope, who has been officially infallible since 1870, claims correspondence with the divine. He asserts the unprovable. However, with science, you have the option to research the facts yourself. If you had a better grasp on general knowledge you would understand why the earth revolves around it's axis. Unfortunately though, you can't just check what happens after you die. No one knows. Not the Buddha. Not the Pope. No one. That's the difference. Roughly.
On another note; do you actually reject science as a whole? If so, I find that really incredible, almost impossible to believe.
You mean just like Buddhism? First of all drop the droll attitude dude because you have no idea what my grasp is on general knowledge and second of all nobody knows WHY the earth revolves around its axis. But modern Science can give a good approximation of HOW it does it.
Many get that mixed up. It is ridiculous to try to defend the scientific method and then claim that nobody knows a specific thing (such as what happens after death).
How would you even go about proving such a claim? It is impossible. I do not reject science at all. Actually I am pretty fond of Science. I reject the ignorant attitude that everything must be valued through the eyes of science to be valid. This is actually not a stance taken by those I consider true scientists.
/Victor
---"In western thought, Kant made a distinction between phenomena and noumena; the knowable world of our senses and the unknowable world as it really is, respectively. Kant reasoned that we can never know the world as it really is as we can only know the world through our senses, which will always be flawed to some degree. We can only arrive at greater approximations of noumena. Where we seem to differ is that I believe (and it is only a belief) that there is a noumena, an objective reality outside ourselves which will continue to exist even if no-one is there to witness it. You seem to be suggesting there is only phenomena and the universes existence is contingent upon something witnessing it...
... I too think there is the world of noumena but as Kant says there can be no theories about it. So for us it is not possible to believe in it or not or actually say anything about it!"
I am confused as to who said this but feel it is not quite right, and in an interesting way. Nyanaponika Thera writes that in Buddhist phenomenology the term dhamma, which would include all mental and corporeal ‘things’ or ‘thing-events’, may be rendered as ‘phenomenon’ just as long as this term is not thought of as implying a correlative ‘noumenon’. In his Abhidhamma Studies - Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time, he writes,
‘Though Nibbana …, does in fact appear quite often in the Dhammasangani, it should be noted that: (1) In all cases it is merely mentioned without any further explanation beyond the classificatory heading under which it appears, and so it differs in that respect from the other "things," to all of which a definition is added; (2) the classifications of Nibbana are all negative in character. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that Nibbana is definitely termed a dhamma, …’
So on this view Nibbana may be thought of as a phenomenon without a noumenon. Kant came so close but didn't quite reach the Buddhist view. Hegel took his ideas on and came even closer. Still, it is impressive that Kant figured out that there must be an original phenomenon that is not an instance of a category. It shows the power of logic to point us in the right direction.