Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

I had opened the following threads; As usual those who opposed will argue the above is absurd because they interpret that I am claiming humans literally and physically created the whole universe like humans created physical objects like furniture, motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, trains, building, and the likes.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
Age
Posts: 7810
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am I had opened the following threads; As usual those who opposed will argue the above is absurd because they interpret that I am claiming humans literally and physically created the whole universe like humans created physical objects like furniture, motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, trains, building, and the likes.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
But, when you claim "the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions" are you also claiming that human beings have been around for as long as 'the existence of reality' has?

If yes, then could you be wrong?

But, if you are not claiming this, then the words "inevitably entangled" has a very strong inclination to mean that you are stating that human beings have been around since existence has.

Maybe you would like to clear up this apparent contradiction to 'us', readers? Or, do you REALLY BELIEVE that "the human condition", which means human beings, have "inevitably entangled" with "the emergence of the existence of reality [creation or]" for as long as "the emergence of reality [creation of] has been around for?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.
Seriously what could be more SIMPLE than this FACT.

Existence, Itself, has been around for longer than human beings have. This One and ONLY Universe, which is existing, and was existing before human beings were created, through evolution, creates EVERY thing, including 'you', human beings. Now, human beings, like other animals, can can also create 'things'. Thee Universe is NOT the only creator. Thee Universe is thee Creator of EVERY thing, and, human beings are just the creator of whatever 'it' is that they have created.

Therefore, the 'reality' that human beings live in 'now', when this is being written, that is; this human being created stressful, war-torn, warring, and pollution-riddled "world", which they have created for themselves on earth, could be argued to be a co-created "reality" that they are part and parcel. This is because thee Universe, Itself created the earth that they exist upon, and it is 'you', adult human beings, who have created that way of life that 'you' are ALL really living in now.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.
Could you use more sufficient words to explain "yourself" better?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
Do you agree that there was 'an existence, or 'a reality-in-itself', BEFORE 'you', human beings, evolved and came along, and thus BEFORE ANY human, so called, "condition" could have evolved and came along also?

If yes, then what other proof do 'you' want that 'reality-in-itself' existed BEFORE, and thus independent, of human conditions?

But, if you do not agree with this, then I think it is up to you to prove otherwise.

What is an OBVIOUS FACT does NOT 'need' PROVING. But if ANY one wants PROOF that there was an existence/reality-in-itself independent of, or before, human conditions, then this is PROVE by that one's own existence.

No human being just magically appeared out of NOWHERE. Each and EVERY human being came about because of prior existing conditions, otherwise known as 'reality-in-itself independent of human conditions'.

Surely, this is NOT to hard to understand at all. Or, is it?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am I had opened the following threads; As usual those who opposed will argue the above is absurd because they interpret that I am claiming humans literally and physically created the whole universe like humans created physical objects like furniture, motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, trains, building, and the likes.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind.

But a paradox occurs given proof must exist as a thing in itself otherwise it is a fabrication of the human mind thus necessitating we create truths. If we create truths then all truth is subject to an interpretation. If it is subject to an interpretation then all being is subject to a "law" where all things must be interpretted with this law not being dependent upon human interaction given human interaction exists as a subset of this law. The law must exist beyond human interpretation given the law guides the human state. As guiding the human state, and existing beyond it, there are things which exist beyond human interpretation given this law cannot be interpretted fully.

The emptiness of the human awareness as a thing in itself necessitates something existing beyond it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am I had opened the following threads; As usual those who opposed will argue the above is absurd because they interpret that I am claiming humans literally and physically created the whole universe like humans created physical objects like furniture, motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, trains, building, and the likes.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind.

But a paradox occurs given proof must exist as a thing in itself otherwise it is a fabrication of the human mind thus necessitating we create truths. If we create truths then all truth is subject to an interpretation. If it is subject to an interpretation then all being is subject to a "law" where all things must be interpretted with this law not being dependent upon human interaction given human interaction exists as a subset of this law. The law must exist beyond human interpretation given the law guides the human state. As guiding the human state, and existing beyond it, there are things which exist beyond human interpretation given this law cannot be interpretted fully.

The emptiness of the human awareness as a thing in itself necessitates something existing beyond it.
It is not flawed but it is the most realistic state one is in.

It is a very real reality that one must lived with.
To do otherwise would be resorting to the unreal in la la land.

Why Take the Leap into La La Land?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31526
Skepdick
Posts: 8332
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:50 pm The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind.
There's a difference between "making part of the mind" and "interacting with the mind".

At no point of me conversing with you have I made your mind a part of my mind

It's just an interaction of minds.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:45 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:50 pm The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind.
There's a difference between "making part of the mind" and "interacting with the mind".

At no point of me conversing with you have I made your mind a part of my mind

It's just an interaction of minds.
You, in reflecting upon the thoughts I stated, have absorbed the thoughts I have stated and made them part of your mind. In interaction degrees of that which interacts is absorbed between the phenomenon which interact. X absorbs Y and Y absorbs X.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:59 am I had opened the following threads; As usual those who opposed will argue the above is absurd because they interpret that I am claiming humans literally and physically created the whole universe like humans created physical objects like furniture, motor vehicles, airplanes, ships, trains, building, and the likes.

I had emphasized and I did NOT say humans literally or physically created the entire universe somehow. Don't associate my sense of co-creating with the above.

What I am stating is the emergence of the existence of reality [creation of] is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.
As such, humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of.

If anyone claimed otherwise, one cannot prove there is an existing independent-of-human-mind external world - reality-in-itself.

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.
The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind.

But a paradox occurs given proof must exist as a thing in itself otherwise it is a fabrication of the human mind thus necessitating we create truths. If we create truths then all truth is subject to an interpretation. If it is subject to an interpretation then all being is subject to a "law" where all things must be interpretted with this law not being dependent upon human interaction given human interaction exists as a subset of this law. The law must exist beyond human interpretation given the law guides the human state. As guiding the human state, and existing beyond it, there are things which exist beyond human interpretation given this law cannot be interpretted fully.

The emptiness of the human awareness as a thing in itself necessitates something existing beyond it.
It is not flawed but it is the most realistic state one is in.

It is a very real reality that one must lived with.
To do otherwise would be resorting to the unreal in la la land.

Why Take the Leap into La La Land?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31526
False.

Again:
"The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."


To prove a thing in itself is to make it subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation.

Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation.

This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is necessary as part of this change.

The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing,
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:09 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 6:50 pm
The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind.

But a paradox occurs given proof must exist as a thing in itself otherwise it is a fabrication of the human mind thus necessitating we create truths. If we create truths then all truth is subject to an interpretation. If it is subject to an interpretation then all being is subject to a "law" where all things must be interpretted with this law not being dependent upon human interaction given human interaction exists as a subset of this law. The law must exist beyond human interpretation given the law guides the human state. As guiding the human state, and existing beyond it, there are things which exist beyond human interpretation given this law cannot be interpretted fully.

The emptiness of the human awareness as a thing in itself necessitates something existing beyond it.
It is not flawed but it is the most realistic state one is in.

It is a very real reality that one must lived with.
To do otherwise would be resorting to the unreal in la la land.

Why Take the Leap into La La Land?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31526
False.

Again:
"The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."


To prove a thing in itself is to make it subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation.

Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation.

This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is necessary as part of this change.

The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing,
The point is the majority of people claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.

If you cannot prove it objectively what is the credibility of claiming what you claim is true.

But as you agree,
"...... to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."

Thus there is no way, a thing-in-itself can exists absolutely independent of the human mind.

Therefore YOU cannot claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:09 am
It is not flawed but it is the most realistic state one is in.

It is a very real reality that one must lived with.
To do otherwise would be resorting to the unreal in la la land.

Why Take the Leap into La La Land?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31526
False.

Again:
"The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."


To prove a thing in itself is to make it subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation.

Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation.

This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is necessary as part of this change.

The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing,
The point is the majority of people claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.

If you cannot prove it objectively what is the credibility of claiming what you claim is true.

But as you agree,
"...... to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."

Thus there is no way, a thing-in-itself can exists absolutely independent of the human mind.

Therefore YOU cannot claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.
Actually to observe a thing in itself, thus resulting it in not being a thing in itself, proves a thing in itself as a mode of change for observation. At one point it existed an another point it did not. The thing in itself is a mode of change in observation.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:03 pm
False.

Again:
"The question is flawed because to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."


To prove a thing in itself is to make it subject to human observation therefore it is no longer a thing in itself, ie independent of human observation.

Considering human observation is a state of change it is continually observing things in themselves thus changing them from a state of being a thing in itself to that which is dependent upon human observation.

This change of a thing in itself to a thing not in itself is the boundary through which human observation changes. The thing in itself is the means of changing human observation thus is necessary as part of this change.

The thing in itself is a boundary of change and this change cannot be observed in its totality thus necessitating the thing in itself as always existing,
The point is the majority of people claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.

If you cannot prove it objectively what is the credibility of claiming what you claim is true.

But as you agree,
"...... to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."

Thus there is no way, a thing-in-itself can exists absolutely independent of the human mind.

Therefore YOU cannot claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.
Actually to observe a thing in itself, thus resulting it in not being a thing in itself, proves a thing in itself as a mode of change for observation. At one point it existed an another point it did not. The thing in itself is a mode of change in observation.
As I have been saying you are off tangent with what is a thing-in-itself.

Note you have to prove in theory [epistemologically] a thing-in-itself can exists as possibly real empirically before you can observe a thing-in-itself.
It is like you cannot observe a square-circle which is an impossibility to be real.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4368
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Terrapin Station »

It's not something apt to proofs. It's a matter of having good reasons to believe one option over competing options.
Skepdick
Posts: 8332
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:11 am It's not something apt to proofs. It's a matter of having good reasons to believe one option over competing options.
Surely you have to have some a priori notion of "good" in order to believe that whatever reasons you have are "good" reasons?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:04 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:23 am
The point is the majority of people claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.

If you cannot prove it objectively what is the credibility of claiming what you claim is true.

But as you agree,
"...... to prove something beyond the human mind existing is in fact to make it part of the human mind."

Thus there is no way, a thing-in-itself can exists absolutely independent of the human mind.

Therefore YOU cannot claim an absolute independent thing-in-itself exist as real.
Actually to observe a thing in itself, thus resulting it in not being a thing in itself, proves a thing in itself as a mode of change for observation. At one point it existed an another point it did not. The thing in itself is a mode of change in observation.
As I have been saying you are off tangent with what is a thing-in-itself.

Note you have to prove in theory [epistemologically] a thing-in-itself can exists as possibly real empirically before you can observe a thing-in-itself.
It is like you cannot observe a square-circle which is an impossibility to be real.
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.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:15 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:04 pm

Actually to observe a thing in itself, thus resulting it in not being a thing in itself, proves a thing in itself as a mode of change for observation. At one point it existed an another point it did not. The thing in itself is a mode of change in observation.
As I have been saying you are off tangent with what is a thing-in-itself.

Note you have to prove in theory [epistemologically] a thing-in-itself can exists as possibly real empirically before you can observe a thing-in-itself.
It is like you cannot observe a square-circle which is an impossibility to be real.
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.
Note the thing-in-itself is an ontological claim which is not verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
You have to prove this ontological entity is realistic before you can observe it empirically and discussed in epistemologically.

Note
  • 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
There is no philosophy that is able to claim substance theory is tenable nor realistic.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7230
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:15 am
As I have been saying you are off tangent with what is a thing-in-itself.

Note you have to prove in theory [epistemologically] a thing-in-itself can exists as possibly real empirically before you can observe a thing-in-itself.
It is like you cannot observe a square-circle which is an impossibility to be real.
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.
Note the thing-in-itself is an ontological claim which is not verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
You have to prove this ontological entity is realistic before you can observe it empirically and discussed in epistemologically.

Note
  • 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
There is no philosophy that is able to claim substance theory is tenable nor realistic.
The 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.
Post Reply