That which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
That which exists is that which is experienced?
Iwannaplato,Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pmThat which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
Good points.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 amIwannaplato,Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pmThat which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact, the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things, so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms.
If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things. The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things.
Facts are independent of individuals' belief and of knowledge and opinion, but they cannot be independent of the human-made framework they emerged from.A fact is something that is true.
The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact.
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.
This is a bit tricky.Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
YOu just shifted the topic. The statement I reacted to was 'Reality is experience'. That implies that only that which is experienced is real. If it doesn't mean that, he or she could clarify. If it does mean that, it's a different claim from we can only know what we experience. The latter statement allows for things to exist that we or life has not experienced. The assertion I reacted does not allow for that. Reality is experience is an ontological claim and a very strong one. There was nothing before life began experiencing. Only that which has been experienced is real. Ontological assertions. YOu are arguing an epistemological position that is not the same. Yours is parsimonious, the one I responded to is not.advocate: The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact,
Give me a link to where modern physics says that. There is no consensus that consiousness is necessary for the collapse of the wave. Yes, some think that, others do not. But, again, this is not the same issue. We would still have waves. His quote did not say The only things are experienced or experience. He said reality. Unless you are arguing that waves are not real.]the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things, so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms.
Not exactly, but then there are no things anywhere if that statement is true.If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things.
And again not supporting the assertion I questioned.The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things.
and this too is a different issue.Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
Some people are most certain that God exists while some people are most certain that God does not exist.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:12 pmAlways, everywhere, in all ways. Reality refers to that of which we can be most certain, which is an explicit knowledge claim.
Are you ASKING or TELLING us this?
Here is ANOTHER statement, with a question mark on the end of it.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Well, in 'ultimate reality' the so-called "science of modern physics" is a LONG WAY BEHIND, in 'time' and in 'knowing'.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 amIwannaplato,Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pmThat which exists is that which is experienced?
And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
Was there nothing before experiencers arose?
The only way of knowing that something exists is cognitively and in fact, the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things,
Are you ABLE TO EXPLAIN to the rest of us, EXACTLY HOW you, LOGICALLY, arrived at this conclusion?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am so, yes, there are no things where there are no life forms.
But so-called "science" tells us that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING, which is, OBVIOUSLY, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. AND, if you WANT TO ACCEPT absolutely EVERY 'thing' that is told to you by just ONE group of people, then who knows WHERE 'you' WILL END UP.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am If we accept what science tells us, it is all wave frequencies but no things.
Do 'you', human beings, REALLY NOT SEE, what I SEE as, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS, like HERE in THIS EXAMPLE?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am The effect of some of those wave frequencies upon the biology of life forms is what creates things
What does the 'it' word REFER TO, EXACTLY, here?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am and indeed it is the only possible way of knowing things.
Just because 'things' are NOT KNOWN, just because there is NO KNOWER, then this does NOT AT ALL mean that there ARE/WERE NO 'things'. The ILLOGICAL FALLACY of this CLAIM speaks for ITSELF, and IS BLINDINGLY CLEAR for ALL TO SEE, here.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 12:12 am Even if there were things in the absence of conscious life forms they could not be then known if there is no knower.
I was asking popeye.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 1:40 pm And if no life form had been on or seen a part of some moon somewhere in the galaxy, it doesn't exist?
I write, sometimes, as I speak, which includes statements with a questioning tone at the end, or here, writing, with a question mark. I can understand it might be confusingHere is ANOTHER statement, with a question mark on the end of it.
Perhaps you know his position well. But I'll wait for his answer.Either way it does NOT logically follow anyway.
So, it seems you are disagreeing with the notion that only experienced things exist. I don't know if that is what he meant, but if it is what he meant, I assume you will disagree with him or have already.There, obviously, HAS TO BE SOME 'thing' BEFORE absolutely ANY 'thing' could come into existence. So, there was SOME 'thing' BEFORE 'experiences' arose.
The Fact that there WAS SOME 'thing' is HOW 'experiences' came-to-exist, and experience.
Yes, it seems like you are both confusing the epistemological issue with the ontological claim made that Reality is experience. Could someone actually say what that means?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 4:33 am Advocate,
Sounds like we are on the same page. Thanks for the affirmation!
If that is the case then "epistemological" is also a metaphysical idea.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:46 pmI'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.
All terms are epistemological. "Meatphysics," is epistemological.