You keep creating strawmen.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:49 pmThe thing in itself is the point of change from one observation to another. A thing is unobserved, then it is observed thus manifesting a change in observation.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:22 amNote the thing-in-itself is an ontological claim which is not verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:21 pm
False, when an observation is made it is made in observing something which was not priorly observed. This accounts for the change in any observation made. The thing in itself is the point of change where something new is observed. The thing in itself can be proven as a point of change in observations.
You have to prove this ontological entity is realistic before you can observe it empirically and discussed in epistemologically.
Note
There is no philosophy that is able to claim substance theory is tenable nor realistic.
- Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
I mentioned 'substance theory' above.
Can you confirm that you understand what 'substance theory' is about?
If yes, demonstrate substance theory [thing-in-itself] is realistic and tenable, then you would have proven the thing-in-itself is true and real.
- Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory