Where is your experience?

[Paul2]

That's the whole point, its better to stick with facts. Why? because what humanity has been labeling "reality" have changed enormously every time the paradigm changes.



About facts yes of course, facts are real, but there is no necessity of having any underlying concept ("below" them). Why? because it will be a concept, not reality. So, no, I don't believe it is necessary.



That's the kind of questions that compels us to conceptualize whats "behind" facts. I choose to stop right there, I see no need to go anywhere past the facts.

On further reflection, there's no great need to call what's behind the facts "reality." If a fact is a fact, that should do everything that the concept "reality" does. If there's something else to the concept of "reality" beyond what a fact is or does, then maybe the concept of reality would be useful, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[Paul2]

So is it a fact that

1. the earth revolves around the sun?
2. the sun revolves around the earth?
3. it depends on your frame of reference.
4. _____________________

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

On further reflection, there's no great need to call what's behind the facts "reality." If a fact is a fact, that should do everything that the concept "reality" does. If there's something else to the concept of "reality" beyond what a fact is or does, then maybe the concept of reality would be useful, but I'm not seeing it.

That's what I think

So is it a fact that

1. the earth revolves around the sun?
2. the sun revolves around the earth?
3. it depends on your frame of reference.
4. _____________________

4. Depending on what you need to do, you will have a particular question. For instance; At what time does the sun rises tomorrow? and will get a prediction and then a confirmation (the fact). If you want to send a probe to the sun, you have to use a set of coordinates and calculate the required forces you need to deal with, and then if the facts are well calculated they will be fulfilled, and so on.

 

[Paul2]

That's what I think



4. Depending on what you need to do, you will have a particular question. For instance; At what time does the sun rises tomorrow? and will get a prediction and then a confirmation (the fact). If you want to send a probe to the sun, you have to use a set of coordinates and calculate the required forces you need to deal with, and then if the facts are well calculated they will be fulfilled, and so on.

What sort of facts exist, then, given that it's not a fact that the earth revolves around the sun? General categories with some specific instances would be helpful for me to understand what you intend.

 

[Dancing David]

You have been facing naive realists, I guess.

Or just your standard response in the JREF, I know I argue a lot over petty stuff.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What sort of facts exist, then, given that it's not a fact that the earth revolves around the sun? General categories with some specific instances would be helpful for me to understand what you intend.

Uff, enormous question. I would stick here to a basic definition, otherwise it is easy to lose ourselves in abstract philosophical ramblings. The definition I like the most is:

"a fact is a verifiable observation"

I find it practical and useful.

 

[Paul2]

Uff, enormous question. I would stick here to a basic definition, otherwise it is easy to lose ourselves in abstract philosophical ramblings. The definition I like the most is:

"a fact is a verifiable observation"

I find it practical and useful.

Can you give me two or three verifiable observations? Specific examples? Just for the sake of clarity?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Can you give me two or three verifiable observations? Specific examples? Just for the sake of clarity?

I saw a clock in the street displaying 07:22. Does that means that it is was a fact that it was 7:22 in the morning? No, I have no means to confirm that, so, the fact is that I saw 07:22 in that clock this morning.

You could say, it is a fact that there is milk on my fridge, but it is not. Maybe your kids finished it and there is none right now, it will only become a fact if you see it.

You bought a car that can do 60mph in 6 seconds. Is it a fact that your car can accelerate in such a way? You need a proper speedometer (gps based for example) a flat surface and then you can see which is the fact, for your car, in the conditions the test is done.

 

[The Man]

Regarding speaking in absolutes, negating the existence of something like absolutes is not stating an "absolute claim" (there is no absolute truth) but rather negating the existence of such claims. You are right, claiming that the world "IS" in a determinate way is a delusion. Every "is" statement is an ontological claim, and I see no need for ontological claims of any sort. Well, unless "facts" could be considered an ontology.

The point wasn't about "there is no absolute truth" being an "absolute claim" (though technically it is). Is was abut the assertion of "there is no absolute truth" and then "if one is correct, the other one most necessarily need to be wrong". The latter imposes a strict dichotomy that the former is intended to negate.

If "Every "is" statement is an ontological claim" then the assertion that 'this is a fact' is also an ontological claim. So by that standard the mere assertion that it "is" a fact makes it an ontological claim.

I believe the subject is rather obscure, and hence the problems we are having maybe merely semantic. For me, the models follow the known or projected facts, not "a world".

No doubt semantic to a major extent, but that set of "known or projected facts" constitutes a "world" or at the most our current understanding of such. The world as we know it is only a collection of complementarily, self-consistent and generally consistent facts.

If I get what you are saying, yes everything would be phenomenal at some point, to be confirmed. I see no need for the word "reality"; I try to use it just to illustrate points.

Well I was using the term "phenomenal" in the sense of 'amazing' or 'remarkable' as well as 'pertaining to the appearance of the world' so a bit of a play on the word on my part.

Yes, the facts limits the reach and nature of our concepts, of our theoretical models. I just don't see the need to assume a "reality" behind facts. The "reality underlying those facts" is always, an assumption.

The simple assertion of something as fact is just an assumption as well. It is only by being congruent and consistent with other facts that some validity to that assertion can be established and maintained. As such we then construct a collection or "world" of mutually supporting facts that represent some "underlying reality" we may never fully understand but do endeavor to define more accurately. So again yes, no doubt semantic to a major extent, but it is the consistency and support of all the facts (the whole world or "reality" of facts) that provide the supporting structure (the "underlying reality") of some given assertion of "fact". It is not something any individual purported "fact" has in and of itself.

 

[The Man]

I saw a clock in the street displaying 07:22. Does that means that it is was a fact that it was 7:22 in the morning? No, I have no means to confirm that, so, the fact is that I saw 07:22 in that clock this morning.

Is it? Perhaps the clock read 07:27 and you just misread it or are remembering some other time as the clock you recall is no longer there or was not functioning during the time you were in the area. While you may not be able to confirm it the inconsistency with other facts may dispute it.

You could say, it is a fact that there is milk on my fridge, but it is not. Maybe your kids finished it and there is none right now, it will only become a fact if you see it.

Nope if there is milk in your fridge it remains a fact even if you are unable to observer it. Again that's what makes it a fact that it doesn't become untrue simply because you fail to observe it.

You bought a car that can do 60mph in 6 seconds. Is it a fact that your car can accelerate in such a way? You need a proper speedometer (gps based for example) a flat surface and then you can see which is the fact, for your car, in the conditions the test is done.

Yep so you need other facts and factors to support or refute the assertion of some purported fact. A whole world or underlying reality of facts in fact.

 

[Paul2]

Isn't is possible, in principle, to show that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact as much (or as little) as the fact of whether there is milk in my fridge (by observation).

Position an observer in space motionless relative to the sun, able to view both the sun and the earth. This observer would observe the earth going around the sun.

Position an observer in space motionless relative to the earth, able to view both the sun and the earth (imagine the observer further beyond the orbit of the earth, but orbiting the sun so that the observer is motionless relative to the earth). This observer would observe the same thing that the other observer would, I presume.

 

[The Man]

Isn't is possible, in principle, to show that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact as much (or as little) as the fact of whether there is milk in my fridge (by observation).

Position an observer in space motionless relative to the sun, able to view both the sun and the earth. This observer would observe the earth going around the sun.

Position an observer in space motionless relative to the earth, able to view both the sun and the earth (imagine the observer further beyond the orbit of the earth, but orbiting the sun so that the observer is motionless relative to the earth). This observer would observe the same thing that the other observer would, I presume.

Well that's a bit of a sticky wicket there. In one case your talking about observations that are dependent on the selection of a particular coordinate system. While the observations themselves might differ (Sun around Earth or Earth around Sun) with the proper coordinate transformations we can get one set of observations from the other. Also the laws of physics are currently formulated to be independent of the selection of any particular coordinate system. In the other case you are speaking of a material existence at a particular location and time (milk in your fringe). While different observers may see different things the material existence of the milk is not dependent upon its observation and the fact that I was able to have milk with my tea this morning demonstrates both that there was milk in the refrigerator and you were unable to observe it where I had stashed it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The point wasn't about "there is no absolute truth" being an "absolute claim" (though technically it is). Is was abut the assertion of "there is no absolute truth" and then "if one is correct, the other one most necessarily need to be wrong". The latter imposes a strict dichotomy that the former is intended to negate.

Agreed. I was referring to the common belief about competing theories, when their "reality behind the theory" can't match the facts. Me? I have no problem with competing theories, because I reckon their validity is their utility, not their "closeness to the truth".

If "Every "is" statement is an ontological claim" then the assertion that 'this is a fact' is also an ontological claim. So by that standard the mere assertion that it "is" a fact makes it an ontological claim.

Indeed, it is an ontology, but the most minimalist I can conceptualize. Much better than other ones (IMO).

No doubt semantic to a major extent, but that set of "known or projected facts" constitutes a "world" or at the most our current understanding of such. The world as we know it is only a collection of complementarily, self-consistent and generally consistent facts.

I would rephrase, the model we know as "world" or "reality" is only a collection of complementary self consistent and generally consistent (consensually validated) facts. Other than this minor changes, I agree.

Well I was using the term "phenomenal" in the sense of 'amazing' or 'remarkable' as well as 'pertaining to the appearance of the world' so a bit of a play on the word on my part.

Ok, then I would agree. In fact (IMO) this is why we can consider the mere existence as a miracle.. not in any religious sense. Just about the wow factor.

The simple assertion of something as fact is just an assumption as well. It is only by being congruent and consistent with other facts that some validity to that assertion can be established and maintained. As such we then construct a collection or "world" of mutually supporting facts that represent some "underlying reality" we may never fully understand but do endeavor to define more accurately. So again yes, no doubt semantic to a major extent, but it is the consistency and support of all the facts (the whole world or "reality" of facts) that provide the supporting structure (the "underlying reality") of some given assertion of "fact". It is not something any individual purported "fact" has in and of itself.

It is an assumption yes, the consistency of a particular fact in relation to other facts and to our world view, and the agreement of others like us, is what allows us to function. I agree with most of what you say, except for the (maybe just semantics) use of "underlying reality".

Is it? Perhaps the clock read 07:27 and you just misread it or are remembering some other time as the clock you recall is no longer there or was not functioning during the time you were in the area. While you may not be able to confirm it the inconsistency with other facts may dispute it.

Agreed. Good point, then it is an assumed fact, that, if is not contradicted with other facts, would pass as it.

Nope if there is milk in your fridge it remains a fact even if you are unable to observer it. Again that's what makes it a fact that it doesn't become untrue simply because you fail to observe it.

Here we disagree. That is an assumption based on past observations. But a fact is only a fact when it is verified. Of course, this means I need no truth theory, as it is irrelevant to think if the milk "is really there" if no one sees it. If I get home and it is there, it is there.

Yep so you need other facts and factors to support or refute the assertion of some purported fact. A whole world or underlying reality of facts in fact.

Yes, consensus, that's an important component of our model called "reality". Other than that, I don't see the need for any world with any underlying reality behind facts.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Isn't is possible, in principle, to show that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact as much (or as little) as the fact of whether there is milk in my fridge (by observation).

Position an observer in space motionless relative to the sun, able to view both the sun and the earth. This observer would observe the earth going around the sun.

Position an observer in space motionless relative to the earth, able to view both the sun and the earth (imagine the observer further beyond the orbit of the earth, but orbiting the sun so that the observer is motionless relative to the earth). This observer would observe the same thing that the other observer would, I presume.

I think The Man gave you a good answer. The trick is in your first phrase on second paragraph: "position an observer motionless relative to the sun".. bingo, now you have set your coordinates and you would see things happening in determinate way from such coordinates. That's about it.

 

[punshhh]

Here we disagree. That is an assumption based on past observations. But a fact is only a fact when it is verified. Of course, this means I need no truth theory, as it is irrelevant to think if the milk "is really there" if no one sees it. If I get home and it is there, it is there.

I agree with most of your philosophy apart from what is referred to in this point. The fact that there is an unknown truth that the milk is in the fridge, while you are off doing something else is a fact, just like the known facts.

So there is a an underlying reality in which the fact of the milk in the fridge is a truth, just like your acknowledgement of a fact is a truth. And yet you are unaware of it until you look in the fridge.

Yes, consensus, that's an important component of our model called "reality". Other than that, I don't see the need for any world with any underlying reality behind facts.

The consensus describes a universe of related facts.

However something exists (an underlying reality), the truth of which is unknown and upon which our existence and ability to know facts is entirely dependent.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Isn't is possible, in principle, to show that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact as much (or as little) as the fact of whether there is milk in my fridge (by observation).

No. There is no valid frame of reference in which any observer will ever conclude that the milk is outside of your fridge, or that the fridge is in your milk.
The same cannot be said of the sun and the earth.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The fact that there is an unknown truth that the milk is in the fridge, while you are off doing something else is a fact, just like the known facts.

So there is a an underlying reality in which the fact of the milk in the fridge is a truth, just like your acknowledgement of a fact is a truth. And yet you are unaware of it until you look in the fridge.

Well, I believe my position is clear, it might not be easy to see, but it is clear. I choose a minimalist approach, so to speak. I see no need whatsoever to introduce concepts as "unknown truths", or "underlying realities". These are ideas, hypothetical constructs, nothing more.

 

[punshhh]

Well, I believe my position is clear, it might not be easy to see, but it is clear. I choose a minimalist approach, so to speak. I see no need whatsoever to introduce concepts as "unknown truths", or "underlying realities". These are ideas, hypothetical constructs, nothing more.

I see that, I prefer to acknowledge what exists.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I see that, I prefer to acknowledge what exists.

Oh but what exists? if you believe in religion, then a ton of things "exist". If you believe in 40's school text books, another ton of things "exists". If you are a naive realist, again, a whole bunch of stuff "exists".

Look at it this way, one possible reason people does not agree in what "reality is", is that there is not such thing. This is why I use a minimalist approach to facts, with no ontology behind the very facts. To put it in other words; "whatever it is" beyond our thought and perceptions is "whatever it is", but knowledge (and meaning) is always a human invention.

 

[The Man]

Agreed. I was referring to the common belief about competing theories, when their "reality behind the theory" can't match the facts. Me? I have no problem with competing theories, because I reckon their validity is their utility, not their "closeness to the truth".

Well they’re not competing theories as they don’t attempt to describe the same events. They are simply incompatible. We just don’t have an easily testable quantum theory of gravity at this time and so it remains outside the application of current quantum field theories. So your lack of problem with competing theories is similarly inapplicable to the problem at hand in this case. Basically we just don’t have enough facts about gravity at very small (on the Planck scale) distances or under extreme gravitational conditions at this time.

Indeed, it is an ontology, but the most minimalist I can conceptualize. Much better than other ones (IMO).

Wait, so now you do see some “need for ontological claims of” at least some sort? You didn’t seem to be conceptualizing it all that much or at all before?

Every "is" statement is an ontological claim, and I see no need for ontological claims of any sort. Well, unless "facts" could be considered an ontology.

So has this minimal concept gone from “no need for ontological claims” to ‘some “need for ontological claims of” at least some sort’?

I would rephrase, the model we know as "world" or "reality" is only a collection of complementary self consistent and generally consistent (consensually validated) facts. Other than this minor changes, I agree.

Well since that “model” is “our current understanding of such” (that collection of facts). The only minor change would be “(consensually validated)”. That gets to be problematic both in the terms of ‘consensus’ and ‘validation’ a lack of falsification though potentially falsifiable seems a better approach to me and is ensconced (or at least intended to be) in the stated self and general consistency referred to before.

Ok, then I would agree. In fact (IMO) this is why we can consider the mere existence as a miracle.. not in any religious sense. Just about the wow factor.

Truly a testament to the utility and understanding in our application of that particular collection of facts.

It is an assumption yes, the consistency of a particular fact in relation to other facts and to our world view, and the agreement of others like us, is what allows us to function. I agree with most of what you say, except for the (maybe just semantics) use of "underlying reality".

Which isn’t a problem for me as long as we both get to the same place it really doesn’t matter what we call the road.

Agreed. Good point, then it is an assumed fact, that, if is not contradicted with other facts, would pass as it.

Would pass as what, a fact or an assumption? Doesn’t “assumed fact” just try to lend some credence to the assumption that your memory or observation of the time was accurate by simply adding the word “fact”.?

Here we disagree. That is an assumption based on past observations. But a fact is only a fact when it is verified. Of course, this means I need no truth theory, as it is irrelevant to think if the milk "is really there" if no one sees it. If I get home and it is there, it is there.

Or lack of past observations and it being there with no one seeing it can be quite relevant to you finding it, given the precept that had anyone else seen it they would have drank it and you would not have found it.

Out of sight out of mind, is that part of your minimalist ontology?

What happens to the milk while it was just not being observed?

Let’s say you put some milk in the fridge, go back and can’t find it. You go away for a few days while a power failure ruins everything in the fridge and you just dump it all without detailed observation. What happened to the milk? What theories about what happened to it are consistent with other facts?

Yes, consensus, that's an important component of our model called "reality". Other than that, I don't see the need for any world with any underlying reality behind facts.

That’s where your “consensus” comes from. Let’s just take the GPS you noted as an example. A constellation of satellites all placed (and remaining) in orbit by the facts of Newtonian mechanics and gravity. Timing signals that incorporate the facts of relativistic time dilation. Integrated circuits in both the satellites and receiver that, among other facts used in their construction, were at some points during production inspected with scanning tunneling electron microscopes and atomic force analyzers incorporating the facts of quantum mechanics . Just one simple device to you yet it requires that whole world of facts underlying the reality of its operation.