Fair enough. Still, I’m interested in the connection, if any, between logical and physical causation. Without mistaking the map for the territory, it seems obvious to me that logical necessity has to be brought to bear on scientific predictions. (I asked this same question on stack exchange in Feb. ) I can’t see how you can strictly separate the laws of logic from the predictive requirements of science.

I agree. 'Logical necessity' belongs to the mathematical syntax out of which scientific models are constructed (with a good be narrative-discursive scaffolding made-up of, what I call, "loan-concepts" from philosophy – such as "causality" – which scientists dishonestly, or obliviously, love to deny, as you know). In so far as scientific models are mathematical they consist in, and require, 'logical necessity'.

The reason madhyamika is not simply nihilism is that on the level of conventional existence, empirical facts are to be respected. However empirical objects of perception have no ultimate or independent existence, which is where it differs from scientific realism, which imbues objects with inherent existence. — Wayfarer

For me antifoundationalism != nihilism. Personally I don't embrace/defend scientific realism. Electrons are no more real or unreal than chairs. Also/or 'real' has no context-independent meaning.

But you still have to respect scientific facts. — Wayfarer

Sure. I'd say science is one of our best conventions.

I think the takeaway is that attaining ‘insight into emptiness’ requires, or indicates, a radical change of perspective, namely from that of the ‘uneducated worldling’ (putthajana) to the awakened perspective of the bodhisattva. At least, that is what all of the standard texts indicate. There’s a saying from a recent teacher, that compassion and wisdom (meaning, ‘realisation of emptiness’) are the two wings of a bird, both are required to take flight. — Wayfarer

I like the two-wings metaphor. As in the esotericism thread, we seem to differ in our attitude to the sage. I think critical thinking, which requires courage & compassion, is the path, but that the path doesn't lead to either a superhuman state and so to some unvarying intensity of compassion/insight.
I don't find an on/off notion of enlightenment plausible. Obviously my views could change.

But what I see on the surface at least (the passages I quoted), I also find in some of the critical, 'secular' 'Western' thinkers I already study. Of course it's not about the fame/authority of this or that author but the case they make.

Quite what ‘the uncreated’ is, then, is obviously an exceedingly delicate hermeneutical question, probably best ‘bracketed out’ rather than made subject of speculation. However it remains central to the whole tradition - if you go to sutta central and search for the unconditioned you will learn there are references throughout the literature. — Wayfarer

That's a tough one. I can only guess what this or that author intended. Personally I'd make sense of the unconditioned in terms of the 'system' as a whole. Within the system conditioned entities depend and are defined in terms of one another, but there's outside or beyond the system for it to depend on. How intelligible/useful this 'system' or 'the unconditioned' are is another issue. But roughly I can imagine a heightened state (achieved thru compassion and the labor of the concept) where the boundary between selves and conventional intrawordly objects (oh wait that includes selves?) vanish.

The real encompasses reason and only the unreal, not reason, encompasses the real. The hole in the unreal is the real and reason is the hole in the real. Simply, unreals are holes in reason.
(Heidi & Hegel ain't got mystagogic shit on me!) :victory: — 180 Proof

:party: :fire: :clap:

I can’t see how you can strictly separate the laws of logic from the predictive requirements of science. — Wayfarer

Consider Hume's problem of induction. If you mean necessity by the 'laws of logic,' then (as noted) quantitative models include it in their pure math aspect but not as far as I can see in their application. The math is applied in a certain extra-mathematical way. A model responds to a hypothetical input with a predicted output and this becomes part of serious decisions. We seem to trust whatever reliably works. Few people learn real analysis, and this doesn't stop them from trusting calculus. I think we'd trust a magic 8-ball if kept beating other methods at making predictions.

I think there is an underlying drive and ideal for knowledge to be an organic whole, encompassing all dimensions of the actual life of an individual who is part of a community that is part of a species that exists in a natural environment. There is also another tendency towards very specific knowledge of specific things in specific circumstances in a specific domain. Scientific knowledge is of the latter type. Scientific experiment, in particular, only works to the extent that certain parameters can be held artificially constant, in order to better examine certain other parameters. This can lead to the well-known and often lamented problem of overspecialization.

The problem is, the more dimensions of knowledge you synthesize, the more abstract become the relationships. These used to find form in the so-called 'Renaissance Man' who was himself the epitome of the broad synthesis of human knowledge. Today, it seems we've passed the point of any one person achieving that level of synthesis. Nevertheless, for me it represents a motivating ideal.