Peter, first you need to apologize for accusing me that I did not answer your question as if I am a coward running away.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:26 am
So your answer is: we didn't and don't create the reality - the 'reality-in-general' - that we describe in different ways. So you are, at least, a methodological realist. Congratulations, and welcome back to reality.
Nope I am not a methodological realist but rather in this case I am not a God who created reality.
But then you also say we co-create the reality with which we're 'entangled'. Questions:
1 Is that co-created reality different from the reality that we didn't and don't create? And how are they related? (This is patent, contradictory nonsense.)
2 If we co-create the reality we're in, who or what is the other co-creator of that reality? Or is there more than one other co-creator? And if this supposed creation of reality is real - not just a woo-woo metaphor - exactly how does it occur? What is the causal mechanism, and what is the evidence for its occurrence?
'Co-create' is not 'create' [like a God ] in the literal sense.
The main point is
Reality [all-there-is] is entangled with me, you and others;
whatever is the reality, there is no way it can be absolutely independent of the human conditions [me, you and others].
You are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is].
You [existence and actions] are a co-contributor [co-creator, co-maker] of the present all-there-is reality?
Question 1: Do you deny and refute this?
Answer: none whatsoever. In other words, this bollocks about creation or co-creation of reality is as credible as supernaturalist creation stories. Your appeal to relativity or quantum mechanical superposition and entanglement is in the long line of false analogies. And anyway, if facts aren't what we say they are, then the claim that there are moral facts is ridiculous.
You missed my point.
My presentation of Newtonian vs Einstein vs Quantum is an analogy to show the independence and interdependence of the human conditions with reality.
I have already explained the-how it is analogous above.
I believe this [evolution of knowledge in Physics] is a very critical analogy for you to break through.
1. The classical Newtonian Physics assumed reality [created by God] is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
2. Then Einstein realized the humans observers are somehow involved in the conclusion of Physics.
3. Then Bohr [& QM] after his "Eureka" realized conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are totally interdependent with the human conditions.
Question 2: Are you ignorant of the above??
The above is equivalent respectively to;
1. Metaphysical /Philosophical Realism [typical common sense, conventional realism]
2. Internal Realism [Putnam]
3. Empirical Realism /Transcendental Idealism [Kantian].
Question 3: If you don't agree, explain why not?
As I had pointed out, your 'facts' are actually in essence "farts", so you don't have the credibility to argue my
facts which are objectively demonstrated with your "facts-as-farts'
PH: 2 Is a factual truth-claim true simply because of its descriptive context?
I have already explained "a million" times what is fact, truth or knowledge is conditioned upon its specific FSK. These are the realization that are conditioned upon the specific FSK.
Thereafter we describe these realizations and emergence.
That "water is H2O" via the scientific FSK is first an emergence and realization and then we put that realization into words to describe it. That description is not the reality 'Water is H2O".
More bollocks that deflects from answering the question. The answer to my question is: no, the truth of a factual assertion does not depend simply on its descriptive context. For example, the truth of the chemistry assertion 'water is H2O' does not depend simply on its being a chemistry assertion. And you know this damn well, but you mindlessly repeat your dogma about facts being 'conditioned upon a specific FSK'.
You think is bollocks because your sense of 'what are facts' are merely 'farts'.
Don't need to repeat your above ad nauseam.
It is relatively 'kindergartenish' there is an obvious difference between '
what is reality' and the '
description of reality'.
Note this new thread;
Emergence, Realization of Reality & Description of It.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35153
where I differentiated between '
what is reality' and the '
description of reality'.
PH: 3 How do we check that a contextual factual truth-claim is true?
As I had claimed whatever is fact, truth and knowledge is conditioned upon a specific FSK or FSR.
The degree of truth of a fact will depend on the credibility of the FSK where the scientific FSK is the standard, i.e. the most credible at present.
Therefore to check or assess the degree of truth of a factual claim we will have to assess the credibility of a FSK in contrast to the best of the scientific FSK as the standard.
Btw, not all scientific claims from the scientific FSK has the same degree of truth, i.e. subject to the methodology and processes used.
What I am referring in the [best-of-the-scientific-FSK in comparison to the best-of-other FSK.
More deflecting flak. The answer to my question, as you damn well know, is that we have to check a factual contextual truth-claim against the reality that, as you agree, we didn't and don't invent. And that's what makes a descriptive context more or less credible in the first place.
You have nothing but spurious, easily falsified claims and refuted arguments. But hey - just Trumpet them often enough, and, hey presto, you've convinced yourself.
Deflecting?
You have not even counter my arguments at all and effectively.
Yes, first we have to "
a factual contextual truth-claim against the reality" but,
1. '
factual' has to be based on real
facts not 'farts' like yours.
2. '
reality' is all-there-is including you, me and others which are intricately part and parcel of that reality.
Question 4 Re 2, how can you deny your are not a 'co-creator' [or co-maker] of the reality you are talking about?
As you can see your statement above is too superficial, narrow and shallow regarding 'what is fact' and 'what is reality'.
Trumpet??
I have given sufficient arguments and justifications from so many different perspectives but you have not countered them.
Rather you are the one who is trumpeting your out-of-tune noises without any groundings, references, at all!
What you have been 'bleating' is merely '
non-moral premises cannot be moral conclusions' which is so kindergartenish.
You have not even answer my questions;
1. How can non-scientific events be concluded as scientific facts?
2. How can non-legal evidences be judged as a legal fact?
3. How can a non-p fact be concluded as a p fact?
All the above are evidently done in practice and reality.
Observed non-scientific falling objects are converted to objective scientific facts re gravity via a scientific FSK.
So observed non-moral [but scientific facts] can be processed as objective moral facts via a credible moral FSK.
Question 5 Do you have a counter to the above?
Btw, don't run away from the questions I raised above.