Despite 'thousands of times' I had insisted "Descriptions & knowledge CANNOT Produce Facts" PH keep insisting that I assert "Therefore, any kind of description can 'produce' facts" as below;
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:20 am VA agrees that descriptions cannot produce facts.
But knowledge cannot produce facts either. For example, it wasn't and isn't our knowing that water is H2O that made or makes water H2O. That's a very strange idea.
Strawman!!!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:33 am Here's the big fallacy.
[VA's] Conclusions:
1 Therefore, there are no facts 'outside' descriptions - 'outside' agreement on the use of signs.
2 Therefore, any kind of description can 'produce' facts. (So there can be moral facts.)
The millionth time.
I have never claimed any kind of knowldge or description can 'produce' facts.
What you termed as fact i.e. a feature of reality that is 'just-is' is a noumenon, illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and nonsensical.
You have never been able to demonstrate how to realize your 'just is'.
Here is how I defined 'what is fact'.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
which imperatively is conditioned to a specific FSK.
Before a 'fact' is known [epistemologicall] and described [linguistically], that 'fact' is already entangled with the human conditions of reality within a 4 billion years old of conditionings and dynamically emerging and must be realized within a specific human based FSK.
Note this;
All Human-Based FSKs are 4 Billion Years Old
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39918
Take the example of 'water'.
"What is supposedly water" as experienced within the primordial soup is embodied within all organisms including humans with up to a 4.0 years of conditioning via evolution.
As such, different organisms will have their specific version of the reality of what is 'supposedly water' i.e. that specific cluster of particles and atoms.
Within human common sense FSK, 'what is water' is what is experienced by the common man, i.e. a liquid that has a quality of wetness with all other features related it 'what is water'.
Now when there is a shift to the science-chemistry FSK, there must be a shift from common sense to chemistry sense, i.e. one need to view that 'what is supposedly water' with atomic eyes, i.e. sensing in terms of atoms, electrons and quarks and not as 'water'.
When we view the reality of 'what is supposedly water' with atomic eyes it is conditioned within the science-chemistry-FSK.
But what is 'that is supposedly water'?
It is cluster of the following;
or this;
The fact is there is no absolute or fixed thing that is 'what is supposedly water'.
To insist like PH that 'what is supposed water' as a fact, feature of reality which is 'just is' is delusional.
This is why Hawking concluded the following;
- Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism#:
What is more realistic is to take into account the 4.0 billion years old human FSK and human -based science-chemistry FSK.
That is the ONLY reality we can realized [prior to being known and described].
This is why
Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In [3]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35227
as conditioned to the specific human-based FSK.
There is no other way.
PH's way in opposite to the above is delusional.
Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts!
The only way that facts of reality can emerge is via its 4.0 billion years of human conditions via evolution in entanglement within a primordial soup that enable the realization of reality within a specific human-based FSK as a fact that is known and described subsequently.