[Buddha-l] Views of Information & Knowledge (Culture & Religion)

[Barnaby Thieme]

Hello Erik,

This problem of meaning that you describe has been considered for many 
centuries as the hermeneutic circle. My feeling is that you go too far here 
in the degree to which you say that meaning is bound to discourse. I prefer 
Gadamer's resolution: meaningful utterance is a "fusion of horizons", and a 
compromise between the parameters of intelligibility and the verbum 
interius. Speech says something beyond itself, or it says nothing at all.

If the similarity between the implications of Madhyamaka and QM were as 
trivial as you suggest ("doubt about ultimate existence"), I would be more 
inclined to agree. But both the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and 
Madhyamaka go into great detail about the preciselimitations of our capacity 
to meaningfully describe phenomena independent of the context of their 
perception, and these detailed descriptions have a striking similiarity.

Regards,
Barnaby

_________________________________

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing
- Emo Philips




>From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms at xs4all.nl>
>Reply-To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Views of Information & Knowledge (Culture & 
>Religion)
>Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:04:15 +0200
>
>Barnaby Thieme schreef:
>
>>What seems interesting to me is that some interpretations of quantum 
>>mechanics propose very specific limitations on the degree to which we can 
>>meaningfully phenomena as ultimately existing. In many cases, those 
>>limitations are extremely similar to similar limitations expressed by, 
>>say, Chandrakirti. Now, this makes me go "hmmmm".
>
>The doubt about ultimate existence is probably nearly as old as philosophy, 
>so from the historical poinmt of view there's no need for QM to reapeat it. 
>But more important is the why. QM has very different reasons, so the 
>meaning of it's ontological propositions is very different. The meaning of 
>scientific proposotions has to be understood from within it's model. Most 
>philosophical propositions, especially those of existential and 
>phenomenological philosophers deal directly with the lifeworld that has 
>been put aside by science. Science has to measure and objectify phenomena 
>and if it reaches it's own limits, that is a consequence of the calculus or 
>the model. QM has a mathematical calculus and if the formulas and equasions 
>run into a circle, this doesn't have the same meaning as when a philosopher 
>says that we explain ourselves while explaining the world thus, both are 
>relative. I agree that there's a formal resemblance, but I'm afraid that's 
>not enough.
>
>>
>>I recently read an article in New Scientist magazine in which Stephen 
>>Hawking made an argument that the history of the universe only has meaning 
>>from any particular perspective; from the point of view of his 
>>cosmological theory, it does not exist "in itself". The argument he made 
>>was very similar to something Kensur Yeshe Thupden had said years earlier. 
>>In the context of analyzing Prasangika-Madhyamaka tenets, Kesur-la 
>>asserted that prior events, including the Big Bang, are "retroactively 
>>imputed by consciousness". I could go more into the details of both 
>>arguments, but I take them both to be saying something very similar, and 
>>that seems like a very important point.
>
>If you would interprete Madhyamika as a science you will have to go the 
>whole way and restate all its propositions in terms of physics. Even if you 
>would succeed you would only have proved that a scientific reading is 
>possible (you have constructed a one by one projection), but not necessary 
>(which is what you're saying now).
>
>>
>>Regarding eternal principles et cetera, my own perspective is that the 
>>general laws of the universe are emergent from the total activity of 
>>everything interacting, and that universal "constants" fall out of that 
>>dynamic interrelationship. Physicists now believe, for example, that the 
>>speed of light C is actually changing as the universe evolves.
>>
>Would we notice it?
>I think we can change the whole universe overnight by changing our 
>mathematical axioms. Gallilei  and Newton changed the universe in not more 
>then a few decades.
>
>Erik
>
>
>www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
>weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l