Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 5:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 8:08 am
Just to say thanks, FDP and IWP - I'm enjoying this discussion.
And just to emphasise something that I reckon is much more important than we realise: outside language, features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations - whatever we call them - have no truth-value. They just are or were the case, neither (classically) true nor false. The truth isn't
out there, any more than falsehood is. Only assertions (usually linguistic expressions) can have truth-value.
Ignorant again.
There are NO features of reality, or states-of-affairs, or situations, just-is, being-so, that are independent of a human based FSK.
False. The big bang, quantum events and the chemical constitution of water were and are independent from 'a human-based framework and system of knowledge'. And you know this, because you agree that a description is not the described. And what that means is that the description
water is H2O is indeed 'within' the discipline of chemistry. But what it describes is
not 'within' that discipline.
Nah you are ignorant again.
If the big bang is not conditioned upon the human-based cosmological FSK,
the quantum events not conditioned upon the human-based QM FSK, and
the chemical constitution of water not conditioned upon the human-based science chemistry FSK,
how can their specific facts emerged and then described as their specific FSK facts.
Surely, the big bang is
not an human-based economic-Fact? and so on with the others?
Surely, the fact that 'water is H20' [crude truth] is not so because your father, mother and you said so?
Note I wrote below;
There are two-stages you must be aware of in the emergence of a human-based FSK fact and the description of it.
There are two-stages you must be aware of.
Take scientific facts which must emerged from a human-based scientific FSK that is grounded way back to the Big Bang. You just cannot ignore this human-based cosmological fact.
It is only then, the the human-based linguistic FSK is used to describe and communicate the human-based scientific facts.
Nonsense. You've constructed a strangely mystical myth that somehow conflates the history of human development, including the emergence of human knowledge about facts of reality, with the nature of those facts. Okay, so if there were no big bang, there would be no humans. But that doesn't mean the fact of the big bang is 'entangled with the human conditions'. What rubbish.
First I have argued, you have not defended, your basis of "what is fact" is illusory, empty, nothing, meaningless and non-sensical.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
I suggest you deal with above 2 critical arguments.
You have not demonstrated your independent facts which is a feature of reality exist as real; you merely blabber it is just-is, being-so, that is the case, blah, blah...
From a TOP-DOWN [not Bottom-Up] basis,
The Big Bang Hypothesis emerged from a human-based science cosmological FSK.
Humans emerged and are entangled with humans via the human-based science cosmological FSK.
If there is no human-based science cosmological FSK and its associated credible fact, then there is no humans.
I suggest that, in rather different ways, VA and the side-kick-dick don't recognise the radical difference and separation between the way things are and what we say about them - and that conflation explains much of their confusion - mistaking models for the modelled, descriptions for the described, names for the named.
Strawman again! the "million+10" times.
I deliberately raised this and similar thread to counter your usual strawman on this issue.
VA: The Description is not The-Described.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40039
VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925
Nothing to see here. Your argument for moral objectivism is demonstrably unsound, or not shown to be sound. I and others have shown repeatedly why your premises are unjustified. You do nothing to rebut our refutations, but merely regurgitate the same falsehoods and fallacies.
Don't give that "I and others" crap!
What sort of authority are you relying upon?
Show me [specific references] where I have failed to rebut your refutations.