Fair enough, but even from a buddhist POV wouldn't a buddhist have to accept that this kind of view can actually make sense, from a logical/mathematical perspective, which I assume is the same kind of logic used by buddhists to accept basic buddhist tenets. The theory might well be wrong, but given that it's based on logic, doesn't it go to show that causation might not be universal after all?Malcolm wrote: Yes, I understand this is the theory — from a Buddhist point of view, it is wrong.
Oops sorry then I guess I just didn't understand. You're saying you're not talking about physical space, maybe that's the part that threw me. What kind of space then are you talking about?I told you already, space is everywhere. Matter obstructs, space does not.
I know that matter obstructs, space does not. But space can be obstructed by matter. In fact all the space we know about and commonly experience is obstructed by matter.
The earth is a specific object. Solidity is a concept that can describe many different things. I can touch something solid but i can't touch solidity... I can only ascribe it to other concrete objects such as earth.The earth is actually the characteristic of matter we call solidity, and so on.
So do you mean, maybe, space as a conceptual dimension? Just like time basically?Unconditioned space is not a characteristic of matter, but because of space, matter can form and perish.
I'm referring to the logic that leads you to say, for example, that it makes no sense to have a causeless cause, or that you can't be one thing and its opposite at the same time. The basic logic you have probably used to start out in buddhism deciding that it made more sense than other paths.Which logic are you referring to? Certainly not the logic of Aristotelian propositions and so forth.
BTW thanks for taking the time to reply. I realise you have nothing to gain from this and I'm the only one learning new stuff here.