Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You keep creating strawmen.

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

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

You keep creating strawmen.

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

I don't have too and it is far from a strawman. If anything your point is a strawman as a thing in itself can exist without substance theory. You are diverting the argument away from my simple point:

The change in observation necessitates a phenomenon as unobserved then observed. This movement from unobserved to observed accounts for a change in observation, the thing in itself accounts for a change in observation. The unobserved moving to the observed, as the change in observation, necessitates a thing in itself as proven through change.

[Conde Lucanor]

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.

Look at the moon. It is 4.5 billion years old, while humans are around 2-4 million years old. We know then that the moon existed as a reality independent of human conditions. It was there before we realized it was there. Now withdraw your claim.

[Skepdick]

Look at the moon. It is 4.5 billion years old

How did you determine this by just looking at it?!?

, while humans are around 2-4 million years old. We know then that the moon existed as a reality independent of human conditions. It was there before we realized it was there. Now withdraw your claim.

Unless the Five-minute hypothesis is true.

In which case your measurement methodology for determining "age of the moon" is producing a result the meaning of which you don't quite understand.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You keep creating strawmen.

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

I don't have too and it is far from a strawman. If anything your point is a strawman as a thing in itself can exist without substance theory. You are diverting the argument away from my simple point:

The change in observation necessitates a phenomenon as unobserved then observed. This movement from unobserved to observed accounts for a change in observation, the thing in itself accounts for a change in observation. The unobserved moving to the observed, as the change in observation, necessitates a thing in itself as proven through change.

Note I raised this OP so I know what is supposed to be on topic.
You are the one who is going off tangent from the OP.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.

Look at the moon. It is 4.5 billion years old, while humans are around 2-4 million years old. We know then that the moon existed as a reality independent of human conditions. It was there before we realized it was there. Now withdraw your claim.

Note in common sense and layman's terms [which is very fallible], yes, it is SO obvious the "moon" existed-prior-to and exists independent of the human conditions, i.e. in the external world.

But for philosophy, we need to be more rigorous with what is really real.

Is the the above claim 'by itself' or what is claimed above, conditioned by human-selves?

Note your "we know" inevitably entails the human conditions, i.e. we [humans] know.

The point is the realization and that statement itself "..the moon. It is 4.5 billion years old, while humans are around 2-4 million years old" is not independent of human conditions. Whatever is "moon" has to go through a human realization process before "what that is" is verified as a real moon.

The point is that statement itself "that the moon existed as a reality independent of human conditions" is not independent of human conditions.

That the moon is observed as independent from the human conditions is merely superficial based on our crude fallible common sense or even conventional sense or science.
Note the general argument,

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. ALL humans are part and parcel of all there is.
  3. The moon is part and parcel of all there is.
  4. Therefore, the moon and humans cannot be independent of each other within reality.

[Conde Lucanor]

Look at the moon. It is 4.5 billion years old

How did you determine this by just looking at it?!?

It was not determined by just looking at it for sure. Actually, by looking at rocks collected by the Apollo missions. A scientific analysis of the minerals returns the age of our satellite.

, while humans are around 2-4 million years old. We know then that the moon existed as a reality independent of human conditions. It was there before we realized it was there. Now withdraw your claim.

Unless the Five-minute hypothesis is true.

This is not even an hypothesis, but some kind of story religious folks made up to explain away the flaws in their creation myths, as revealed by scientific facts. As the same Wikipedia entry explains:

"Scientifically, the concept is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any conceivable scientific study—in other words, it is impossible to conclude the truth of the hypothesis, since it requires the empirical data itself to have been arbitrarily created to look the way it does at every observable level of detail."

In which case your measurement methodology for determining "age of the moon" is producing a result the meaning of which you don't quite understand.

But of course, this kind of argument is a fallacy, an old sophism that relies on a fundamental illusion, one that would require, if the person arguing is committed to follow his own logic, to withdraw any certainties about the world and fully embrace epistemological nihilism. As it becomes evident, this is not what happens, since the person arguing implies the possibility of separating truth from falsehood. This skepticism is then just pseudoskepticism and mere denialism.

[Conde Lucanor]

So, prove to me reality-in-itself exists independent of human conditions and I will withdraw my claim.

Look at the moon. It is 4.5 billion years old, while humans are around 2-4 million years old. We know then that the moon existed as a reality independent of human conditions. It was there before we realized it was there. Now withdraw your claim.

Note in common sense and layman's terms [which is very fallible], yes, it is SO obvious the "moon" existed-prior-to and exists independent of the human conditions, i.e. in the external world.

Note that the "layman's terms" about the age of the moon are not obtained from common sense. Years of scientific research have produced solid knowledge about the world that has become common, even for the simplest of people. That goes for the age of the moon and for the time of hominids in the planet. And then you put these facts together and reach the conclusion that the existence of the first is independent of the existence of the latter.

But for philosophy, we need to be more rigorous with what is really real.

Is the the above claim 'by itself' or what is claimed above, conditioned by human-selves?

Note your "we know" inevitably entails the human conditions, i.e. we [humans] know.

I'm all for being rigorous, but then we could start by asking what is the point of bringing up the human-conditioned nature of the notions about the world, while asking at the same time to make philosophical assessments about it. Isn't philosophy already a human affair concerning our relationship with the world?

The point is the realization and that statement itself "..the moon. It is 4.5 billion years old, while humans are around 2-4 million years old" is not independent of human conditions. Whatever is "moon" has to go through a human realization process before "what that is" is verified as a real moon.

In the same line of argument I just explained above, so what? Statements of facts are made by humans. The very notion of fact is purely human. But what is conveyed in those statements of facts is independent of human conditions. It takes a human to realize about conditions that are independent of humans, but more importantly, it is the nature of the realization process that allows for our certainties about the independence of the states of the world from human conditions.

The point is that statement itself "that the moon existed as a reality independent of human conditions" is not independent of human conditions.

That statement is perfectly consistent with the moon existing independent of human conditions. It took human-designed approaches to know what the moon actually is, but the moon will consistently be what it is, and was what it was, independently of what I get to know about it.

That the moon is observed as independent from the human conditions is merely superficial based on our crude fallible common sense or even conventional sense or science.

But it is not that the moon is observed as independent from human conditions, it is known as independent from human conditions.

Note the general argument,

• 1. Reality is all-there-is.
  2. ALL humans are part and parcel of all there is.

Not true. Humans are contingent beings in the universe that could cease to exist tomorrow. The rest of all there is will continue to exist without the need of humans for being what it is.

3. The moon is part and parcel of all there is.

Not true. Astronomical bodies are contingent beings in the universe that could cease to exist tomorrow. The rest of all there is will continue to exist without the need of moons for being what it is.

4. Therefore, the moon and humans cannot be independent of each other within reality.[/list]

Contingent bodies exist within the same reality. They can be independent of each other. Ontologically, Saturn is independent of Mercury and the moon is independent of Earth, as well as independent of humans.
But even if the premises were true, that conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Just because things exist within reality doesn't mean they get to be dependent of each other.

[Skepdick]

This is not even an hypothesis, but some kind of story religious folks made up to explain away the flaws in their creation myths, as revealed by scientific facts. As the same Wikipedia entry explains:

"Scientifically, the concept is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any conceivable scientific study—in other words, it is impossible to conclude the truth of the hypothesis, since it requires the empirical data itself to have been arbitrarily created to look the way it does at every observable level of detail."

You read the wrong part of that article.

Scroll down to the 5-minute hypothesis. Or I can quote it...

The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regard to memory and trust in evidentially derived historical chronology.

But of course, this kind of argument is a fallacy, an old sophism that relies on a fundamental illusion, one that would require, if the person arguing is committed to follow his own logic, to withdraw any certainties about the world and fully embrace epistemological nihilism.

Well, it wouldn't really be a matter of choice. What is there to "embrace" if the very nature of the 5-minute universe has me believing that it's much older than that.

As it becomes evident, this is not what happens, since the person arguing implies the possibility of separating truth from falsehood. This skepticism is then just pseudoskepticism and mere denialism.

How is this evident to you? How would you separate the truth from falsehood on whether the universe is actually 5 minutes old, when your very perception of time tells you otherwise?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...
...
Contingent bodies exist within the same reality. They can be independent of each other. Ontologically, Saturn is independent of Mercury and the moon is independent of Earth, as well as independent of humans.
But even if the premises were true, that conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Just because things exist within reality doesn't mean they get to be dependent of each other.

I agree with you in every aspect of independence you mentioned above, i.e. common sense, conventional, scientific and whatever except note this;

"But it is not that the moon is observed as independent from human conditions, it is known as independent from human conditions."

Note the following from a more refine perspective;

• human knowing (it is known as independent from human conditions)

From the above, what is realized and known as independent from human conditions, cannot be ABSOLUTELY independent of human conditions.
As such the human knowing [human conditions] is always a pre-condition to whatever is or reality.
There is no way you can disentangle humans from reality.

But even if the premises were true, that conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Just because things exist within reality doesn't mean they get to be dependent of each other.

At one level of reality, yes, things are independent of each other.
But at a more fundamental and more realistic level, seemingly independent things are all connected to each other within reality.
Somehow it is only when driven by ignorance that people do not sense the human conditions are intricately part and parcel of reality.

Here is one example of the common Ignorance of Unity within Diversity.
Note the different thousands of unique aspen trees in the forest below, but fundamentally they are merely ONE tree spread over a few square miles.





What are the ontological and practical consequences to the above?
The above idea of a reality independent of the human conditions have had serious consequences for the individual and mankind since the emergence of a God that is independent of the human conditions.

The idea of an independent reality leaves individuals vulnerable to blame certain terrible existential sufferings externally and their attempt to seek solutions externally rather than within themselves.
The idea of an independent God has generated terrible evil and violent acts against humans and will go on in the future and could possibly lead to the extermination of the human species by fundamental Islamists.

When you dogmatically cling to the existence of an independent reality, you are complicit to the above potential theistic atrocities.

[Skepdick]

...
...
Contingent bodies exist within the same reality. They can be independent of each other. Ontologically, Saturn is independent of Mercury and the moon is independent of Earth, as well as independent of humans.
But even if the premises were true, that conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Just because things exist within reality doesn't mean they get to be dependent of each other.

I agree with you in every aspect of independence you mentioned above, i.e. common sense, conventional, scientific and whatever except note this;

This is not compatible with your proclaimed Buddhism. There are no joints/fault lines in the world.

Ontologically the Earth and the Moon have gravitational effects on each other. If the Moon was "independent" life on Earth wouldn't exist

The separation is a function of Western Philosophy's proclivity for identity/individualism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

...
...
Contingent bodies exist within the same reality. They can be independent of each other. Ontologically, Saturn is independent of Mercury and the moon is independent of Earth, as well as independent of humans.
But even if the premises were true, that conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Just because things exist within reality doesn't mean they get to be dependent of each other.

I agree with you in every aspect of independence you mentioned above, i.e. common sense, conventional, scientific and whatever except note this;

This is not compatible with your proclaimed Buddhism. There are no joints/fault lines in the world.

Ontologically the Earth and the Moon have gravitational effects on each other. If the Moon was "independent" life on Earth wouldn't exist

The separation is a function of Western Philosophy's proclivity for identity/individualism.

Why not, Buddhism-proper recognizes different levels of reality, things are independent of humans and each other at the conventional level but at the ultimate level of reality everything is connected and yet empty [or nothing].
Buddhism-proper teaches one to be able to switch e.g. from one view of the Necker Cube to the other at all times, and optimizes against existing conditions.

[Skepdick]

Why not, Buddhism-proper recognizes different levels of reality, things are independent of humans and each other at the conventional level but at the ultimate level of reality everything is connected and yet empty [or nothing].
Buddhism-proper teaches one to be able to switch e.g. from one view of the Necker Cube to the other at all times, and optimizes against existing conditions.

Then the notion of "independence" is incoherent, except as an idea/ideal to be understood in absolute terms.

If you are influencing me and I am influencing you, in what way are we "independent" from each other? It's just a manner of speaking, but ontologically it's not true.

[Conde Lucanor]

You read the wrong part of that article.

Scroll down to the 5-minute hypothesis. Or I can quote it...

The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, that proposes that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regard to memory and trust in evidentially derived historical chronology.

Again, this is not really an hypothesis, one that would be verifiable and falsifiable, but sort of a thought experiment. For that purpose, it is no better or worse than the 4-minute hypothesis or the 40-year hypothesis. In fact, it wouldn't be any different than proposing the possibility that the universe, as we know it, is no more than the dream of a giant lizard. Now imagine someone asking you to prove that the world is not the dream of giant lizard, which implies that person himself being part of the illusion. If the essence of reality is deceit, illusion, so are the beings that populate this illusion, and so their perception and ideas. No possible criteria to define truth from falsehood, anything goes. So then, what would be the point of a character in this farce asking for any distinctions between reality and illusion?

But of course, this kind of argument is a fallacy, an old sophism that relies on a fundamental illusion, one that would require, if the person arguing is committed to follow his own logic, to withdraw any certainties about the world and fully embrace epistemological nihilism.

Well, it wouldn't really be a matter of choice. What is there to "embrace" if the very nature of the 5-minute universe has me believing that it's much older than that.

To assume that the 5-minute hypothesis is true is to assume that you and I actually don't exist, that we're not writing in a forum, that nothing we think or do is a reliable actuality, that we are just characters in a farce. The 5-minute hypothesis is just another version of solipsism, which is, of course, the real subject of this thread.

As it becomes evident, this is not what happens, since the person arguing implies the possibility of separating truth from falsehood. This skepticism is then just pseudoskepticism and mere denialism.

How is this evident to you? How would you separate the truth from falsehood on whether the universe is actually 5 minutes old, when your very perception of time tells you otherwise?

What I do is that I ask you if you believe you're an illusion from the 5-minute universe. If you don't, then I can proceed with the agreed assumption that the world is real and it can be distinguished from illusion. If you do, then for you anything goes and there's no point in arguing, since there's no foundational realistic state to start with.

[Conde Lucanor]

I agree with you in every aspect of independence you mentioned above, i.e. common sense, conventional, scientific and whatever except note this;

"But it is not that the moon is observed as independent from human conditions, it is known as independent from human conditions."

Note the following from a more refine perspective;

• human knowing (it is known as independent from human conditions)

From the above, what is realized and known as independent from human conditions, cannot be ABSOLUTELY independent of human conditions.
As such the human knowing [human conditions] is always a pre-condition to whatever is or reality.
There is no way you can disentangle humans from reality.

Of course one can disentangle humans from reality, one just needs to drop dead. The entire human race could cease to exist and the universe will still be there, being exactly as it has been before humans showed up. It will not exist for humans, evidently, but that would be only an epistemological condition that would not alter the ontological status of the universe. The point often advanced by anti-realists is that ontology remains as a human enterprise of inquiry into the world, but the farthest that their arguments can reach is to deny all certainties, and that includes their own certainties. So, they can choose to embrace the belief that everything is an illusion and that reality in itself, independent of human consciousness, doesn't exist, but they can't surely assert as an indisputable truth that it doesn't exist. If they were sure, they would be losing in their own game. And then one can also check if they actually behave as if they really believed that everything is an illusion. Most often, they don't, and they even debate in internet forums as if they were real and there was other real people writing back.

Here is one example of the common Ignorance of Unity within Diversity.
Note the different thousands of unique aspen trees in the forest below, but fundamentally they are merely ONE tree spread over a few square miles.

It is a given that the full scope of relationships in the universe are not immediately evident to human sight. We are, after all, just another group of imperfect sentient beings with limited capabilities. It takes a lot of curiosity and hard work to begin to unravel the mysteries of the world, including the mysteries of how to develop the tools that would make that discovery enterprise more fruitful. And so we have created disciplines that organize our inquiries and the knowledge we obtain, a project always in the making, with ups and downs, but fairly accurate and reliable in many fields. It is not the impossibility of absolute knowledge that renders this project obsolete or futile.

What are the ontological and practical consequences to the above?
The above idea of a reality independent of the human conditions have had serious consequences for the individual and mankind since the emergence of a God that is independent of the human conditions.

The idea of an independent reality leaves individuals vulnerable to blame certain terrible existential sufferings externally and their attempt to seek solutions externally rather than within themselves.
The idea of an independent God has generated terrible evil and violent acts against humans and will go on in the future and could possibly lead to the extermination of the human species by fundamental Islamists.

I don't see any direct, necessary relationship, between philosophical realism and deism or theism. That things in the world exist independent of human consciousness does not entail that nature, the universe itself, can be thought to be separated from other (supernatural) domains. The proposal of supernatural domains may well be a response to our need to escape from our real existential sufferings, but it is by all means an unrealistic view, a set of illusions. And the best antidote against this self-deception is to look at the world as it actually is, independently of how we would like it to be.

When you dogmatically cling to the existence of an independent reality, you are complicit to the above potential theistic atrocities.

Not at all. By independent reality we mean just a reality that does not depend on our perception of it. We are all, humans and the rest of objects in the universe, part of it, but by no means in a state of subordination of things to consciousness, actually just the opposite, our consciousness subordinate to the state of concrete things. By independent reality it is not meant a domain outside the world.