alan wrote:Then pull the plug!
Or...Put in the plug!
Or, oh hell, just stop the damn thing!
chownah wrote:Pannapetar wrote: Here is why: A simple equation, such as C/2r=pi expression a relation of entities or -if you want- interdependence. Among other things, it implies that we know what the symbol "2" means; the symbol "2" implies natural numbers and for natural numbers we need the Zermelo-Fränkel set theory. Thus we find interdependence on a larger scale. Does this somehow constitute a deficiency? Does mathematics depend on conditions in any other way than the Buddhadhamma depends on conditions? That is to say, does the Buddhadhamma not depend on ideas, postulates, and theorems, some of which are simple, some of which complex, many of which are interdependent, all of which are expressed in symbolic language? Is the Buddhadhamma therefore deficient?
I think you are treating alot of ideas as if they had "self". The equation above is an idea...it is not a relationship...it is an idea about other ideas...it does not apply to anything except ideas. There are no circles except within the mind....quantum science has pretty much shown that measurement is not an absolute....things can not actually be measured....straight lines can not be shown to exist much less circles....in mathematics a circle is usually defined as a locus of points and a point is defined as being dimensionless......these are neat ideas but they are ideas only. You can spin ideas in whatever way you want but you will only end up with ideas which is fine....I think the Buddha taught that one must become disillusioned with ideas in progressing towards the end of dukkha but I'm not sure. It seems like you think this idea is going to help you find the way out but I'm not sure.
Mathematics is an idea and indeed in that sense it depends on condition just like all other ideas but there is nothing about mathematics that makes it particularly exceptional as an idea (in terms of the Buddha's teachings) other than perhaps its usefulness in the modern world.
Pannapetar wrote:The not-self (anatta) doctrine of Buddhism takes two forms: a special form and a generalised form...
1. Are phenomena themselves manifestations of atta/atman as far as these laws are concerned?
2. Are there classes of mathematical laws that are subject to some kind of impermanence?
3. Are there physical laws that are subject to some kind of impermanence?
4. Does our mind/thoughts somehow experience atta/atman to the extent to which we can understand these laws?
5. What part of ourselves understands these laws? ...
6. An argument favoured by theologians (rejected by Buddhists): is it our atman/brahman nature that discovers and understands these laws?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], phil and 3 guests