What is a Fact?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:56 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:16 pm The distinction between realism and antirealism is just a matter of how to conceptualise the underlying fabric of all things. the important point is that nothing about the world as we live in it would be different either way. That means how we think about facts, how we describe the concept, none of that would change either. And that makes it a pointless diversion which you engage in when you have outwitted yourself. It is a scoping error, there is nothing riding on realism/antirealism, if you think it changes anything to do with any moral argument you have misunderstood something very fundamental.

You can try the same trick with one of the other irrelavent issues if you like. You can try and say that there has to moral fact because there is free will, or that there cannot be moral fact because there is no free will, just as you can claim that antirealism 'proves' either case. I'm going to show disdain for such things simply because those debates only relate to themselves, they have no bearing any other issue because the world would always be no different either way.
Why do you avoid going for your own sacred cows every time you think you are making a point?

Nothing about reality rests upon human descriptions or conceptions of it.

There's nothing riding on truth or falsity.
There is nothing riding on humans successfully conceptualising ALL or ANY of reality.
Correct, we occupy the visible universe we experience, the logically undetectable undergarments of reality are a matter of specualtion in a void. But we inhabit the sort of world that we do, it is made out of things and stuff as far as we are concerned. If somebody outside the universe would see it in different terms to the way somebody inside the universe would see it, well that's not terribly suprising, but it doesn't change anything here, on the inside, where we are, and where we evolved all of our concepts with which to discuss and understand these things.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:56 am I am going to show disdain for your disdain because your debates relate to nothing of relevance or importance whatsoever if nothing we ever say or do makes any difference. Reality today is exactly the same as reality 10000 years ago.

Therefore all philosophy/science/medicine/engineering are all pointless diversions - might as well put an end to it all tomorrow. Society attempting to do anything whatsoever is a pointless diversion. Reality doesn't give a shit whether humans understand it or not because the world would be no different either way.
Dont be such a drama queen. If your purpose for carrying out engineering is to change the fabric of existence itself, you have gotten very confused.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:45 pm Dont be such a drama queen. If your purpose for carrying out engineering is to change the fabric of existence itself, you have gotten very confused.
Not me. You don't fucking get it the notion of supervenience

The ACT of computation IS the deterministic manipulation of physical matter! https://youtu.be/m5WodTppevo?t=14

Quantum entanglement is computation (thinking).

https://www.quantamagazine.org/landmark ... -20200304/
That is "the fabric of existence itself" - nature/human observer it's all the fucking same.

In your zealotry pursuing the objectivist dream you've erased humans from the equation, so you can't account for downward causation.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:29 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:06 am You cannot deny the following;
99.99% black is 0.01% white.
and the other combinations.
Thus 99.99 true is 0.01 falsehood.
Yes I can, it's definitely wrong. Which sort of wrong is a matter of understanding how you are framing your example though.

I wouldn't contest that the albedo of a surface could be measured using calibrated equipment and certified as 99.99% non reflective with a remainder of 0.01% reflected, and I am not in the optical sciences, but if the reflected light is spread out equally across the visible spectrum then we can allow whiteness. That doesn't create a 0.01% falsehood though. What results from that measurement is a factual statement, there is no percentage of truth just because there is a percentage of reflection.

If on the other hand your measuring device is humans and their opinions about the blackness or whiteness of an object, somebody is just plain wrong there. Not some fake percentage of wrong, they are entirely wrong. If the shade of the surface is sort of somewhere between grey and black, something oblique enough that not everyone agrees it is black, then any assertion of white is 100% nonsense.

If lighting conditions make it impossible to tell whether some object is black or white, the experiment is generating unreliable data and there is no basis to assert any probability at all in that circumstance.

There are colours which normal people don't always agree on, with some shades that look brown to one viewer but are clearly orange as far as some other is concerned. In those cases, it is quite probable that some authority has assigned colours not by visual inspection, but rather by assigning certain wavelength boundaries between the official colours. From the perspective of that official framework, it is entirely possible to say "that is orange and Pantone agree with me so it is an offical fact". The other person can even agree with this and opt to abide by Pantone's ruling, yet they still see that colour as brown, and their assent to a convention that this is not what the colour is, doesn't change that, nor does it really make them wrong. Our concepts of seeing-as are unaffected by this, and the concept of probability is irrelevant here in any case.

You can have a picture of a dress where people see-as radically different colours to each other (black and gold vs blue and something, we all know the photo I am half-remembering). In that case, it's totally cool either way, you can describe it as each pairing according to what you see in that photo, and under different conditions you see it as the other and thus describe it as the other. I don't actually care whether people decide the matter by saying one view is wrong because if you look at it under normal conditions everyone agrees it is red and yellow. Or they can use one of the other resolution strategies, the seeing-as happened the way it did at the time, and the seeing-as can happen a different way at some other time.

Much more importantly, there is a strong connection between the science of optics and the way we do actually see, we can allow for that science to resolve disputes over colour and shade because it so well tracks our experiences, so if people want to agree there is a true colour of something, that is completely legitimate even though it is a truth by convention, not an external objective fact. Totally measurable features of light and eyeballs directly determine how we see stuff.

The science of morality you propose has no chance of doing the same. We can all agree on some very basic stuff, everybody understands that unequal division is unfair if there are no other factors. If you tell a moral story about 3 children divvying up a basket of apples and all the children get the same number of apples, that is intuitively fair, and if one child gets all the apples but the others get none, that is intuitively unfair, as long as there are no reasons to explain any of that. But if you could actually build a true and indisputable moral framework from such elements, it would have happened already, and it defintitely hasn't been done. There is, as I already aknowledged somewhere, at least some biological element in morality, it is necessary for our brains to be wired up in such a way that we can percieve the basic ingredients from which the cake is baked - equity, loyalty, empathy and so on. There is something for you to get some facts about in all of that, but you will still be prevented from proceeding to generate moral truths that go beyond banal tautology even if you put in a bit more effort and get better facts than those you are wielding in your clumsy arguments in other threads.

The problem is that morality will still boil down to subjectivity becasue it is all about the seeing-as within that inescapable framework of evolved biological stuff (becasue evolution is unplanned you see), and there are too many occasions where something can be seen by one person as a duty, but by another as disloyalty. You cannot distil morality down to a single variable in the way you can with light, and in any case you cannot measure the variables at all, they have no physical propoerties to measure, applying stupid made up percentages to them is no substitute. If you try to define an action as 99.99% charity 0.01% selfishness you will be making zero sense still.
I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality without exceptions.

Image

From the above image, you will note the generic principle is;
  • -there is always yin in yang - in matter of % combination adding to 100%
    -there is always yang in yin - matter of % combination adding to 100%
    there is no 100% absolute of either yin or yang.
    thus if 99.99% yin, then there is 0.01% yang and so forth.
the dynamic transitions of yin to yang to yin and so on generate reality and life.

That you gave all sorts of examples to disprove this generic principle of life is due to your ignorance and inability to get to the breath and depth of this knowledge.
  • Note this example,
    If say you take 1000 tons of pure black paint and dump it in into a large hole.
    Then you take 10,000,000 tons of pure white paint and dump it in into the same a large hole.
    Then mix up the paint thoroughly.
    Now what you see is 'pure' white paint.
    But you cannot deny the 1000 tons pure black paint in what is observed as "100%" white.
    Thus the fact is the mixture is 99.99% white and 0.01% black which reflect the actual state-of-affairs of reality.
As I had stated, the Yin-Yang principle is generic and universal, there is no exception to it.
Therefore it will apply in the case of morality.
It is just a question of how to get to it.
You cannot because your analytical skills and philosophical competency is not high enough.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality without exceptions.
I'm sorry. Are you telling me that this argument of yours has had an unwritten dependency on the competition between two cosmic forces that I don't believe exist? Cosmic forces which your own probability matrix would deny exists?

And you think that you can just insert that now and demand it be taken seriously? This will not happen.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am That you gave all sorts of examples to disprove this generic principle of life is due to your ignorance and inability to get to the breath and depth of this knowledge.
Take your religious sermon to the religion sub and talk about it with people who want to talk religion.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
  • Note this example,
    If say you take 1000 tons of pure black paint and dump it in into a large hole.
    Then you take 10,000,000 tons of pure white paint and dump it in into the same a large hole.
    Then mix up the paint thoroughly.
    Now what you see is 'pure' white paint.
    But you cannot deny the 1000 tons pure black paint in what is observed as "100%" white.
    Thus the fact is the mixture is 99.99% white and 0.01% black which reflect the actual state-of-affairs of reality.
You see how there are quantities in that description such x number of tons of paint? That means I can just let this go, I can say fine.
Or I can point to the self defeat built into arguing that there is no such thing as purity and all yins have yang, and then telling me about "1000 tons pure black paint"
Also all you actually have there is ten million tons of white paint adulterated with a thousand tons of not white paint. To the naked eye it would just be white, to a calibrated scope it would be less than entirely white, to a degree that might be presented in percentage terms, or albedo, but that's just levels of description in action. In no sense would it be any percentage black though, the black paint is gone, the new paint is just slightly off white.
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.

So your example fails on many levels, and as such doesn't work to undermine my criticism of your fake numbers and fraudulent probabilities.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am As I had stated, the Yin-Yang principle is generic and universal, there is no exception to it.
But both of your quantities of paint were exceptions to it before you mixed them.
Therefore it will apply in the case of morality.
It is just a question of how to get to it.
You cannot because your analytical skills and philosophical competency is not high enough.
The yin yang principle is pure spiritual bullshit. Nonsense about some female cosmic force that is the reflection of a male cosmic force. If I could be bothered with yet more rounds of this stuff I would make you explain it in your own terms and then use your own "impossibility to be true" argument on it.

This thread is as bad as the other one.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality without exceptions.
I'm sorry. Are you telling me that this argument of yours has had an unwritten dependency on the competition between two cosmic forces that I don't believe exist? Cosmic forces which your own probability matrix would deny exists?

And you think that you can just insert that now and demand it be taken seriously? This will not happen.
I did not mention any mystical forces at all.
I stated the Yin-Yang are the generic principles of reality, thus applicable from quantum forces to cosmic forces which can be verified with empirical evidences.

You are indeed VERY ignorant on this principle but not Niels Bohr - one of the founder of Quantum Physics.
Bohr acknowledged the Principles of Complementariness of the Yin-Yang philosophy helped him to discover and established the Theories of Quantum Mechanics.
He was so appreciative that he included the Yin-Yang symbol in his Coats of Arms.
Since Niels Bohr did not have a coat-of-arms, he designed one himself around the Tai-Chi (yin-yang symbol) which he envisioned as a striking traditional representation of the principle of complementarity on which he based his views of the fundamental laws of physics. Also known as the wave-particle duality, this principle stresses that physical fields have properties which are usually attributed either to particles or to waves.
http://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm ... %20physics.
Image

Btw, you cannot deny how useful are the Theories of Quantum Mechanics to humanity at the present.

The above exposed your ignorance.

Not only the above, but in fact you are ignorant of so much knowledge.
I have much knowledge in reserves, the deeper you dig to counter me, I will pull them out one by one to show you are one always a few steps behind.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am That you gave all sorts of examples to disprove this generic principle of life is due to your ignorance and inability to get to the breath and depth of this knowledge.
Take your religious sermon to the religion sub and talk about it with people who want to talk religion.
It is a fact you are ignorant of lots of knowledge that is already known within humanity database.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
  • Note this example,
    If say you take 1000 tons of pure black paint and dump it in into a large hole.
    Then you take 10,000,000 tons of pure white paint and dump it in into the same a large hole.
    Then mix up the paint thoroughly.
    Now what you see is 'pure' white paint.
    But you cannot deny the 1000 tons pure black paint in what is observed as "100%" white.
    Thus the fact is the mixture is 99.99% white and 0.01% black which reflect the actual state-of-affairs of reality.
You see how there are quantities in that description such x number of tons of paint? That means I can just let this go, I can say fine.
Or I can point to the self defeat built into arguing that there is no such thing as purity and all yins have yang, and then telling me about "1000 tons pure black paint"
Also all you actually have there is ten million tons of white paint adulterated with a thousand tons of not white paint.
To the naked eye it would just be white, to a calibrated scope it would be less than entirely white, to a degree that might be presented in percentage terms, or albedo, but that's just levels of description in action. In no sense would it be any percentage black though, the black paint is gone, the new paint is just slightly off white.
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.

So your example fails on many levels, and as such doesn't work to undermine my criticism of your fake numbers and fraudulent probabilities.
Again you are ignorant of the fact.
The fact or state-of-affair of that reality is there is;
1000 tons of pure black paint and
10,000,000 tons of pure white paint.

The percentages are a different perspectives that generate its respective facts which are all true and indisputable upon its respective qualifications.

If I state, 1000 tons of fine iron filings and 10,000,000 tons of fine white powder [say flour].
When mixed what you see is a 'mountain'/heap of white stuff as perceived from a distance.
We can still separate the iron filing out but running through the heap with a very strong magnet, many times.

Now these are facts of the heap as qualified;
  • 1. To the naked eye from a distance, we see 'pure' white stuff.
    2. To the people who mixed the measured stuff, that heap is
    • i. 0.01% black iron filing, 99.99% white powder.
      ii. visually it is precisely 0.01% black , 99.99% white .
      iii. 1000 tons of fine iron filings and 10,000,000 tons of fine white powder.
    3. To the chemist is 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H
    4. To the physicist, it is 0.01% Fe atoms and 99.99% C-O-H atoms.
    5. To the Quantum Physicists, the heap can either be comprised of wave or particles relative to the observer's action.
    6. To the philosophers who reflect deeper - there is "nothing" at all.
    7. There are many other perspectives to that heap with its respective facts.
From the above, from one fact of a heap, there are so many corresponding facts to the same heap with different referents - but they all must [imperative] be qualified to the perspective, framework and context

Thus my point, what is fact is generated from the respective Framework of Knowledge and there can be no fixed referent for each fact.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am As I had stated, the Yin-Yang principle is generic and universal, there is no exception to it.
But both of your quantities of paint were exceptions to it before you mixed them.
Therefore it will apply in the case of morality.
It is just a question of how to get to it.
You cannot because your analytical skills and philosophical competency is not high enough.
The yin yang principle is pure spiritual bullshit. Nonsense about some female cosmic force that is the reflection of a male cosmic force. If I could be bothered with yet more rounds of this stuff I would make you explain it in your own terms and then use your own "impossibility to be true" argument on it.

This thread is as bad as the other one.
In the above, I have exposed your IGNORANCE and your limited range of knowledge.

Your matter-of-fact dogmatically is a dogmatic matter-of-fart.

You know why you are so desperate to protect and defend you knowledge bubble so dogmatically?
You are a slow learner, if you read my other threads you will understand why but it is more likely, NEVER.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am I did not mention any mystical forces at all.
I stated the Yin-Yang are the generic principles of reality, thus applicable from quantum forces to cosmic forces which can be verified with empirical evidences.

You are indeed VERY ignorant on this principle but not Niels Bohr - one of the founder of Quantum Physics.
Bohr acknowledged the Principles of Complementariness of the Yin-Yang philosophy helped him to discover and established the Theories of Quantum Mechanics.
He was so appreciative that he included the Yin-Yang symbol in his Coats of Arms.
Since Niels Bohr did not have a coat-of-arms, he designed one himself around the Tai-Chi (yin-yang symbol) which he envisioned as a striking traditional representation of the principle of complementarity on which he based his views of the fundamental laws of physics. Also known as the wave-particle duality, this principle stresses that physical fields have properties which are usually attributed either to particles or to waves.
http://www.numericana.com/arms/bohr.htm ... %20physics.
Image

Btw, you cannot deny how useful are the Theories of Quantum Mechanics to humanity at the present.

The above exposed your ignorance.

Not only the above, but in fact you are ignorant of so much knowledge.
I have much knowledge in reserves, the deeper you dig to counter me, I will pull them out one by one to show you are one always a few steps behind.
You have to be an idiot of a very special kind to think that complementarity from quantum physics can be applied to macro-level human events. And then even claim intellectual superiority. :) Bohr is turning in his grave.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality without exceptions.

Image
Well-well, looks like your crippling existential crisis has merely chased you from one quasi-religion to another, this time Yin and Yang. You should do something about that. :)

Yin and Yang should be seen as a symbolism for nondualism, if you are taking it literally like that, you are doing the exact opposite of what you should be.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:45 am You have to be an idiot of a very special kind to think that complementarity from quantum physics can be applied to macro-level human events. And then even claim intellectual superiority. :) Bohr is turning in his grave.
I think Bohr is munching popcorn from his grave.

Macroscopic quantum entanglement achieved at room temperature
Scientists drum up quantum entanglement at the macro scale
Room-temperature storage of quantum entanglement using decoherence-free subspace in a solid-state spin system
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Atla »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:11 am
Atla wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:45 am You have to be an idiot of a very special kind to think that complementarity from quantum physics can be applied to macro-level human events. And then even claim intellectual superiority. :) Bohr is turning in his grave.
I think Bohr is munching popcorn from his grave.

Macroscopic quantum entanglement achieved at room temperature
Scientists drum up quantum entanglement at the macro scale
Room-temperature storage of quantum entanglement using decoherence-free subspace in a solid-state spin system
These are great achievements, and let's just say you don't have the slightest idea why they prove my point.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Atla wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:27 pm These are great achievements, and let's just say you don't have the slightest idea why they prove my point.
Indeed - I don't have any idea why they prove your point.

From where I am looking they disproved your point.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality without exceptions.
I'm sorry. Are you telling me that this argument of yours has had an unwritten dependency on the competition between two cosmic forces that I don't believe exist? Cosmic forces which your own probability matrix would deny exists?

And you think that you can just insert that now and demand it be taken seriously? This will not happen.
I did not mention any mystical forces at all.
I stated the Yin-Yang are the generic principles of reality, thus applicable from quantum forces to cosmic forces which can be verified with empirical evidences.
So you have some special homebrew version of yin yang and you are calling that in to save you now. This is still stupid, if you want to predicate your moral theory on yin and yang, then do so from the beginning. You just use this shit as as a deus ex machina to change the subject when your arguments are exposed.

I will not be discussing eastern mysticism with you any further, it simply isn't relevant. If you cannot rescue your argument without it, then you have a very bad argument.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am
You see how there are quantities in that description such x number of tons of paint? That means I can just let this go, I can say fine.
Or I can point to the self defeat built into arguing that there is no such thing as purity and all yins have yang, and then telling me about "1000 tons pure black paint"
Also all you actually have there is ten million tons of white paint adulterated with a thousand tons of not white paint.
To the naked eye it would just be white, to a calibrated scope it would be less than entirely white, to a degree that might be presented in percentage terms, or albedo, but that's just levels of description in action. In no sense would it be any percentage black though, the black paint is gone, the new paint is just slightly off white.
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.

So your example fails on many levels, and as such doesn't work to undermine my criticism of your fake numbers and fraudulent probabilities.
Again you are ignorant of the fact.
The fact or state-of-affair of that reality is there is;
1000 tons of pure black paint and
10,000,000 tons of pure white paint.

The percentages are a different perspectives that generate its respective facts which are all true and indisputable upon its respective qualifications.
Yawn. The percentages here are real percentages because they represent actual measurable quantities of stuff. Remember this is about you defending a claim that nobody can doubt that "Thus 99.99 true is 0.01 falsehood" which I am pointing out over and over again is a fake percentage in your moral argument - a made up number you use to label things as if by science as true and false that in reality are only what you do and do not like. I feel like you are overcommitting to the 99.99% black is 0.01% white bit when my real target is the other bit ....
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am If I state, 1000 tons of fine iron filings and 10,000,000 tons of fine white powder [say flour].
When mixed what you see is a 'mountain'/heap of white stuff as perceived from a distance.
We can still separate the iron filing out but running through the heap with a very strong magnet, many times.

Now these are facts of the heap as qualified;
  • 1. To the naked eye from a distance, we see 'pure' white stuff.
    2. To the people who mixed the measured stuff, that heap is
    • i. 0.01% black iron filing, 99.99% white powder.
      ii. visually it is precisely 0.01% black , 99.99% white .
      iii. 1000 tons of fine iron filings and 10,000,000 tons of fine white powder.
    3. To the chemist is 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H
    4. To the physicist, it is 0.01% Fe atoms and 99.99% C-O-H atoms.
    5. To the Quantum Physicists, the heap can either be comprised of wave or particles relative to the observer's action.
    6. To the philosophers who reflect deeper - there is "nothing" at all.
    7. There are many other perspectives to that heap with its respective facts.
So I repeat myself for the stupid.... that's just levels of description in action.
You take an object, describe it at the physical level as some collection of atoms. You describe it at another level it's wood with paint on it. Next level, it's either a garden fence or the Mona Lisa.

but you still missed the actual point. All you have done this time is create a new metaphor constructed from actual measurable quantitities of stuff to get your percentages. My criticism has been that you are making up percentages for things you cannot measure this way. So why are you still failing at this?

If you scroll back up a bit and remind yourself what I was arguing before you turned this whole shitshow into a discussion of your pseudo-religious mystical stuff you might remember that my response to your paint metaphor specified "Which sort of wrong is a matter of understanding how you are framing your example though." And after that I gave two examples of ways in which you might frame it, and in each case why they make the claim I was adressing untrue. Above, you have used both of them.

You have not addressed my points at all, now you are just restating similar examples to which the same counters apply. you are even still sticking to the colour thing even though I gave my explanation for why I can concede a lot to simple mechanistic colour examples simply because the moral facts you are in search of are not by nature mechanistic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am From the above, from one fact of a heap, there are so many corresponding facts to the same heap with different referents - but they all must [imperative] be qualified to the perspective, framework and context
This one line bankrupts your whole argument. You've been claiming simple facts such as the price of a chair as moral knowledge, and now you are exposing even simple facts as incomplete and subject to interpretation at many levels.

Imagine what happens when you take a complex moral issue where none of the inputs are even quantifiable?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:30 am Thus my point, what is fact is generated from the respective Framework of Knowledge and there can be no fixed referent for each fact.
The big white heap was a fact with a referent.
The 0.01% Fe and 99.99% C-O-H was fact with referent.
Your work there, at best, demonstrates that an object in the universe cannot be reduced to a single fact, but that it is actually the referent to an uncountable number of facts available for an unimaginable number of purposes. And yet, the one sort of fact you want to be able to assert about it is moral, and that one still isn't working for you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote:If you scroll back up a bit and remind yourself what I was arguing
OK I'll do that.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
  • Note this example,
    If say you take 1000 tons of pure black paint and dump it in into a large hole.
    Then you take 10,000,000 tons of pure white paint and dump it in into the same a large hole.
    Then mix up the paint thoroughly.
    Now what you see is 'pure' white paint.
    But you cannot deny the 1000 tons pure black paint in what is observed as "100%" white.
    Thus the fact is the mixture is 99.99% white and 0.01% black which reflect the actual state-of-affairs of reality.
You see how there are quantities in that description such x number of tons of paint? That means I can just let this go, I can say fine.
Or I can point to the self defeat built into arguing that there is no such thing as purity and all yins have yang, and then telling me about "1000 tons pure black paint"

Also all you actually have there is ten million tons of white paint adulterated with a thousand tons of not white paint.
To the naked eye it would just be white, to a calibrated scope it would be less than entirely white, to a degree that might be presented in percentage terms, or albedo, but that's just levels of description in action.
In no sense would it be any percentage black though, the black paint is gone, the new paint is just slightly off white.
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.

So your example fails on many levels, and as such doesn't work to undermine my criticism of your fake numbers and fraudulent probabilities.
Again you are ignorant of the fact.
The fact or state-of-affair of that reality is there is;
1000 tons of pure black paint and
10,000,000 tons of pure white paint.

The percentages are a different perspectives that generate its respective facts which are all true and indisputable upon its respective qualifications.
If you scroll back up a bit and remind yourself what I was arguing before you turned this whole shitshow into a discussion of your pseudo-religious mystical stuff you might remember that my response to your paint metaphor specified
"Which sort of wrong is a matter of understanding how you are framing your example though."
And after that I gave two examples of ways in which you might frame it, and in each case why they make the claim I was adressing untrue. Above, you have used both of them.
I noted your point above which complicated what I intended to explain my point.
In any case, it still make sense from a hindsight POV and that percentage % combination is a fact for anyone to repeat the same shade of 'white'. This is what is going on in the paint industry.

To avoid confusion, I shifted to another example using iron filings [Fe] and Flour [C-O-H] to ensure I get to the point I intended to convey.
It is very practical to shift to another metaphor or analogy or when one do not work to convey the point.

Again you are ignorant. The essential concept of Yin-Yang has nothing to do originally with religion nor pseudo-religion. Its fundamental is from Chinese Philosophy.
In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang is a concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
Note my background is Eastern Philosophy, there are a lot more of Eastern Philosophy principles that I have not introduced into this discussion, yet - will do it only where necessary.

That Bohr and many others had turned to Eastern Philosophy for solutions when the issues get more tough and more complex should indicate to you the depth and strength of Eastern Philosophy.

For you to ignore the rest of the world's database of knowledge but only to concentrate on Western Philosophy [relatively new compared the Eastern Philosophy] only show your limited philosophical competence with narrow, shallow and dogmatic views.

Here's Thomas McEvilley explaining how the >10,000 old Hindu Philosophy influenced the 'merely' 2500 years old Greek Philosophy which give rise to 'your' Western Philosophical thoughts.

Thomas McEvilley “The Shape of Ancient Thought”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:If you scroll back up a bit and remind yourself what I was arguing
OK I'll do that.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am
  • Note this example,
    If say you take 1000 tons of pure black paint and dump it in into a large hole.
    Then you take 10,000,000 tons of pure white paint and dump it in into the same a large hole.
    Then mix up the paint thoroughly.
    Now what you see is 'pure' white paint.
    But you cannot deny the 1000 tons pure black paint in what is observed as "100%" white.
    Thus the fact is the mixture is 99.99% white and 0.01% black which reflect the actual state-of-affairs of reality.
You see how there are quantities in that description such x number of tons of paint? That means I can just let this go, I can say fine.
Or I can point to the self defeat built into arguing that there is no such thing as purity and all yins have yang, and then telling me about "1000 tons pure black paint"

Also all you actually have there is ten million tons of white paint adulterated with a thousand tons of not white paint.
To the naked eye it would just be white, to a calibrated scope it would be less than entirely white, to a degree that might be presented in percentage terms, or albedo, but that's just levels of description in action.
In no sense would it be any percentage black though, the black paint is gone, the new paint is just slightly off white.
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.

So your example fails on many levels, and as such doesn't work to undermine my criticism of your fake numbers and fraudulent probabilities.
Again you are ignorant of the fact.
The fact or state-of-affair of that reality is there is;
1000 tons of pure black paint and
10,000,000 tons of pure white paint.

The percentages are a different perspectives that generate its respective facts which are all true and indisputable upon its respective qualifications.
If you scroll back up a bit and remind yourself what I was arguing before you turned this whole shitshow into a discussion of your pseudo-religious mystical stuff you might remember that my response to your paint metaphor specified
"Which sort of wrong is a matter of understanding how you are framing your example though."
And after that I gave two examples of ways in which you might frame it, and in each case why they make the claim I was adressing untrue. Above, you have used both of them.
I noted your point above which complicated what I intended to explain my point.
Try again. You forgot to highlight this bit
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am In any case, it still make sense from a hindsight POV and that percentage % combination is a fact for anyone to repeat the same shade of 'white'. This is what is going on in the paint industry.
Yes, well the paint industry uses real percentages because they use quantities of physical stuff.
Your argument is about morality and the percentages you are assigning are fabricated out of bullshit.
You just assign low scores to stuff you don't like and high scores to stuff you believe in, and call that probability, like a liar would.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am To avoid confusion, I shifted to another example using iron filings [Fe] and Flour [C-O-H] to ensure I get to the point I intended to convey.
It is very practical to shift to another metaphor or analogy or when one do not work to convey the point.
But that example still depended on quantities of measurable stuff. So it fixes nothing, you are still faking your data whan you assign probabilities in your morality argument. You are also still relying on levels of description, and I have explained already what the problem is with that.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am Again you are ignorant. The essential concept of Yin-Yang has nothing to do originally with religion nor pseudo-religion. Its fundamental is from Chinese Philosophy.
In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang is a concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
From your own link....
In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng, lit. "dark-bright", "negative-positive") is a concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.[1] In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of Yin and Yang and formed into objects and lives. Yin is the receptive and Yang the active principle, seen in all forms of change and difference such as the annual cycle (winter and summer), the landscape (north-facing shade and south-facing brightness), sexual coupling (female and male), the formation of both women and men as characters and sociopolitical history (disorder and order).[2]
You just cut off the paragraph before it got to the bits that didn't suit you. Yin Yang is mistical spiritualist bullshit.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am Note my background is Eastern Philosophy, there are a lot more of Eastern Philosophy principles that I have not introduced into this discussion, yet - will do it only where necessary.
Well try to make it something less religious next time please.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jun 12, 2020 6:42 am I am approaching the above from Eastern Philosophy re Yin and Yang which is a generic principle of reality without exceptions.
I'm sorry. Are you telling me that this argument of yours has had an unwritten dependency on the competition between two cosmic forces that I don't believe exist? Cosmic forces which your own probability matrix would deny exists?

And you think that you can just insert that now and demand it be taken seriously? This will not happen.
Note my explanation above [exposing your ignorance] that Yin-Yang is from Chinese Philosophy not directly from any religion nor pseudo-religion.

Yin-Yang is not any MYSTICAL cosmic forces but it is present in all your [all human] actions and life.
  • Example:
    When you walk forward, one leg is Yin and the other is Yang in term of placements and forces involved.
    When you stand straight on your left leg [say, Yin] - there is 99.99% Yin & 0.01% Yang and as you move forward with your right leg [Yang], then the % starts to change inversely as you move forward until you stand straight on the right [Yang] which is then 99.99 Yang, 0.01% Yin.
    This is how the principles of the Tai Chi Chuan [Chinese Martial Art] are intuitively derived.
    To get accurate %s, we can do that with scientific measurements.
The above is applicable to all human actions and reality - the task is to identify the relevant opposing variables.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am I noted your point above which complicated what I intended to explain my point.
Try again. You forgot to highlight this bit
But as this is all measurable stuff in your example, so it can be quantified, and you can have an actual percentage that is meaningful because you have measurable proportions.
OK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am In any case, it still make sense from a hindsight POV and that percentage % combination is a fact for anyone to repeat the same shade of 'white'. This is what is going on in the paint industry.
Yes, well the paint industry uses real percentages because they use quantities of physical stuff.
Your argument is about morality and the percentages you are assigning are fabricated out of bullshit.
You just assign low scores to stuff you don't like and high scores to stuff you believe in, and call that probability, like a liar would.
I understand morality is more complicated than physical stuff.
This is why I have to use physical stuff as an analogy to lead into morality.
Note;
  • the concept of Yin-Yang is applicable to the whole of reality.
    Since Morality is part and parcel of reality,
    therefore, those complementary % within Yin-Yang are also applicable to morality.
It is the question of getting into the details with greater precision and rigor.
You are stuck in this because your philosophical knowledge base is limited.

In any case, within morality, the focus is on 99.99% facts or those with the highest degree of justified veracity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am To avoid confusion, I shifted to another example using iron filings [Fe] and Flour [C-O-H] to ensure I get to the point I intended to convey.
It is very practical to shift to another metaphor or analogy or when one do not work to convey the point.
But that example still depended on quantities of measurable stuff. So it fixes nothing, you are still faking your data whan you assign probabilities in your morality argument. You are also still relying on levels of description, and I have explained already what the problem is with that.
As I had stated, the default of progress and improvement, i.e. morality in this case, has to be quantified from empirical evidences.
Note axiology - the measurement of values [re Prof].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am Again you are ignorant. The essential concept of Yin-Yang has nothing to do originally with religion nor pseudo-religion. Its fundamental is from Chinese Philosophy.
In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang is a concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
From your own link....
In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng, lit. "dark-bright", "negative-positive") is a concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.[1]
In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of Yin and Yang and formed into objects and lives.
Yin is the receptive and Yang the active principle, seen in all forms of change and difference such as the annual cycle (winter and summer), the landscape (north-facing shade and south-facing brightness), sexual coupling (female and male), the formation of both women and men as characters and sociopolitical history (disorder and order).[2]
You just cut off the paragraph before it got to the bits that didn't suit you. Yin Yang is mistical spiritualist bullshit.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:31 am Note my background is Eastern Philosophy, there are a lot more of Eastern Philosophy principles that I have not introduced into this discussion, yet - will do it only where necessary.
Well try to make it something less religious next time please.
Note I stated,
The essential concept of Yin-Yang has nothing to do originally with religion nor pseudo-religion.

What is wrong with this,
In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of Yin and Yang and formed into objects and lives.
That exclude itself from any claim of God, thus from theism and theistic religions.
That would support my concept of emergence without an original cause, i.e. God.

There is nothing false about this as well;
Yin is the receptive and Yang the active principle, seen in all forms of change and difference such as the annual cycle (winter and summer), the landscape (north-facing shade and south-facing brightness), sexual coupling (female and male), the formation of both women and men as characters and sociopolitical history (disorder and order).
The concept of Yin-Yang which is Positive-Negative which can be represented by any variable.
It was/is abused when uniquely interpreted as Yin = female and Yang = Male absolutely, which led to misogynism and many other abuses [religion, politics, medicines :shock: , health, etc] which was never intended by its original philosophy.
Post Reply