Kenshou, arguing for atman in mathematical formulas does not (at least no directly) end suffering. However, math and science are certainly helpful in the endeavour of ending ignorance and delusion.
Pannapetar wrote: For me, the point of getting acquainted with metaphysics is to learn the flaws of various metaphysical positions. Only then is it possible to avoid their trappings.
alan wrote:OK, I'm going to propose a boycott. No more responding to this nonsense.
Sobeh, good work. You have destroyed whatever remained of the argument. There isn't much left to say. So let's not say it. Agreed?
Kenshou wrote:I'm aware of the utility of math and science in those aspects. But, is it necessary for dispelling ignorance and delusion as they pertain to the four noble truths?
gabrielbranbury wrote:For those of us who have accepted a path of practice and have faith in it, what use is there in ruminating about ideas which have no bearing on that practice?
alan wrote:OK, I'm going to propose a boycott.
I have no idea what this discussion is about or what purpose it serves but I have a question since I live on a mountainside. How would I go about 'objectively validating by purely logical or non-empirical means' that the terrain surrounding me has a complex fractal topology? Would I need to borrow Tilt's tinfoil hat for this exercise or are you perhaps not finished with it yet?Pannapetar wrote:mountains are large three-dimensional objects with a complex fractal topology. While all of these are of course "mental constructs", they do form a special class of statements, namely a non-arbitray, objective class of statements that can be validated by purely logical (non-empirical) means.
chownah wrote:Otherwise....can you please write down here a "mathematical law" and explain it to me...and why it is called a law....and the equation which indicates that pi is the ration between the circumfrence and diameter of a circle most assuredly does not count as a "law" because it is merely an equation which could be true or false...if you think it is true then please show me a proof...but even with a proof it should not be considered a "law".
chownah wrote:Otherwise....can you please write down here a "mathematical law" and explain it to me...and why it is called a law....
Pannapetar wrote:Sobeh, is it possible that you are taking this a bit too far? I had not intention of bringing in the five aggregates and the sixth senses, as this would further complicate the discussion of an already complicated matter.
Pannapetar wrote:Did I detect some aversion to metaphysics? For me, the point of getting acquainted with metaphysics is to learn the flaws of various metaphysical positions. Only then is it possible to avoid their trappings.
Pannapetar wrote:Buddhism is, by the way, certainly not free of metaphysics. Although Buddhism wisely avoids extremes, I see it -especially in its Theravada form- leaning towards phenomenalism, which might explain why an objectivist understanding of science and math doesn't harmonise with it.
No dude, I don't need a computer at all, I live on a real mountain. You suggested that in shapes in nature, specificallyPannapetar wrote:Nathan, there is a better way than doing this by hand: you can use computer software to generate mountains using fractal geometry. This is a run-off-the-mill feature in computer games, for example, for generating terrains. See here for example: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/0 ... ntains.php
As I see nothing about the surrounding terrain to suggest a fractal geometry on any scale I asked for you to explain how a real mountain could possibly be correctly described in any way by employing fractal geometry.mountains are large three-dimensional objects with a complex fractal topology
nathan wrote:This is why I will now go on to suggest that computer models, while they may frequently appear to indicate various realistic patterns are actually frequently suggesting false and illusory projections.
nathan wrote:As I see nothing about the surrounding terrain to suggest a fractal geometry on any scale I asked for you to explain how a real mountain could possibly be correctly described in any way by employing fractal geometry.
nathan wrote:Which is why I think that twice now it has been clearly shown that fractal geometry has no real relationship of any kind to any actual mountain in the natural world.
Ben wrote: I could produce visually impressive graphical representations of contamination plumes but the accuracy of the krigging algorythm was largely dependent on the number and placement of data points.
retrofuturist wrote:Those who mistake the unessential to be essential...
Pannapetar wrote:retrofuturist wrote:Those who mistake the unessential to be essential...
Retro, your skill at quoting appropriate sutta is certainly unquestioned, but it comes across slightly condescending.