"is' is merely a copula.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 2:33 am What is definitely is. And that we humans perceive, know and talk about what is in a human way doesn't change what is.
What-is definitely is [a copula].
You just cannot leave what is suspended as a copula.
Actually you are aligning with theists thinking where they claim,
God is!
Rather,
What-is definitely is what?
I believe the most accurate description of what-is is 'all are stardusts'
this is exactly what everything of reality is made up.
But this is relatively crude,
to be precise we can say what-is is 'atom' or to be more accurate,
nucleus-electrons, quarks, can be particle or wave and 'don't know what is after that'.
What we realize as reality in the conventional sense is crude, but it cannot be just "is".
So, what-is is whatever emerges out of any specific FSK.
The necessary FSK is critical.
That apple is an apple via the common sense FSK.
That apple is a scientific fact conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
That apple is a X-fact conditioned upon the X-FSK.
There is no way you can state the fact of an apple [or any thing] without qualifying the specific FSK that grounds it.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.
Theists can claim God is [exists] is a fact, i.e. a theistic fact conditioned upon a theistic FSK. But in this case, the theistic FSK has zero credibility thus a zero-credible-fact.
Fact as defined here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Logical true no ought can directly be derived from is. It is a fallacy of equivocation.But what is can never entail what ought to be. What we think ought to be is a choice, decision, or judgement that we make individually and/or collectively.
Since ought and ought-not are inherent within all humans as conditioned within a moral FSK, their existence as is will emerge as 'ought'.
In the case of abortion rights, what they claim are facts from God not as natural facts.That's why morality - what we think is morally right and wrong - isn't and can't be objective. And those who claim there are moral facts often do so in order to justify imposing their moral opinions on others. The struggle over abortion rights in America is a prime example.
As such they insist such divine moral facts must be imposed on others. This [unjustified abortion rights] is pseudo morality not morality proper.