PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:40 am
What I am claiming is the emergence of facts as conditioned upon a FSK and there is no fact that is pre-existing and independent by itself awaiting discovery.
And this is false. The chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist, independently, before we described it as 'H2O'. And it would have been what it is even if it had never been described through the whole history of the universe. You're just wrong. We've invented different ways to describe reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
Your above is too kindergartenish [philosophically]. I will agree with your points above if both of us are confined to a kindergarten class [philosophically] because it is so obvious from that limited perspective.

BUT from a more refined level of philosophical consideration, there is no real 'water-in-itself' nor 'H2O-in-itself'.
I have already gone through this argument a 'million' times already.

If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA

Prove that H2O-in-itself didn't exist as real by itself before it emerged as a fact entangled with the human conditions as conditioned within a credible chemistry framework and system of knowledge.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:20 am VA
Prove that H2O-in-itself didn't exist as real by itself before it emerged as a fact entangled with the human conditions as conditioned within a credible chemistry framework and system of knowledge.
Don't be a coward with that sort of counter.

You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

Here is a clue for you re the Astronomical FSK re the fact of Pluto;
Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune. It was the first object discovered in the Kuiper belt and remains the largest known body in that area.

After Pluto was discovered in 1930, it was declared the ninth planet from the Sun.

However, beginning in the 1990s, its status as a planet was questioned following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc, including the dwarf planet Eris, leading the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 2006 to define the term planet formally—excluding Pluto and reclassifying it as a dwarf planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
You will note the astronomical fact from the astronomical FSK changed.
There is no question of right or wrong, true or false in this case.
Whatever is a fact is conditioned by the respective FSK.
In this case, the fact of Pluto as in 2006 is conditioned by the astronomical FSK.

It is the same with the fact of H20 as conditioned by the Chemistry FSK.
The fact of H20 did not emerge until its emergence via the entanglement of the Chemistry FSK with the human conditions.

Since you are making the positive claim, you have to prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?

Btw, kissing the early-Wittgenstein ass won't help you since W abandon those kindergartenish thoughts of the Tratatus in his later years.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:12 am Btw, kissing the early-Wittgenstein ass won't help you since W abandon those kindergartenish thoughts of the Tratatus in his later years.
Since I am neither PH nor VA, I can happily ask VA to prove (lol) his claim that water did not exist before humans thought about it or experienced it. VA has made this kind of claim many times. He can joust with PH on who has the onus between them (however juvenile) but since he has made his own claim he needs to demonstrate it.

And in case he somehow thinks making negative assertions about things evades an onus, the fact that he believes things did not exist before our consciousness entails a number of POSTIVE ontological claims about the nature of reality.

Further 'prove' is a terrible word choice. Proofs are for things like math and symbolic logic. This is a fundamental misuse. It is a somewhat common one, but given what I highlight below, telling.

In his response to PH....
'coward'
' kissing the early-Wittgenstein ass*
'kindergartenish'

What is this crap?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:20 am VA
Prove that H2O-in-itself didn't exist as real by itself before it emerged as a fact entangled with the human conditions as conditioned within a credible chemistry framework and system of knowledge.
Don't be a coward with that sort of counter.

You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

Here is a clue for you re the Astronomical FSK re the fact of Pluto;
Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune. It was the first object discovered in the Kuiper belt and remains the largest known body in that area.

After Pluto was discovered in 1930, it was declared the ninth planet from the Sun.

However, beginning in the 1990s, its status as a planet was questioned following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc, including the dwarf planet Eris, leading the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 2006 to define the term planet formally—excluding Pluto and reclassifying it as a dwarf planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
You will note the astronomical fact from the astronomical FSK changed.
There is no question of right or wrong, true or false in this case.
Whatever is a fact is conditioned by the respective FSK.
In this case, the fact of Pluto as in 2006 is conditioned by the astronomical FSK.

It is the same with the fact of H20 as conditioned by the Chemistry FSK.
The fact of H20 did not emerge until its emergence via the entanglement of the Chemistry FSK with the human conditions.

Since you are making the positive claim, you have to prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?

Btw, kissing the early-Wittgenstein ass won't help you since W abandon those kindergartenish thoughts of the Tratatus in his later years.
My counter-question was a tease. Try these instead. See if you can wriggle out of them as well.

1 What is water-in-itself, and why is it different from water?
2 (To echo IWP) What empirical evidence do you have for the claim that water (or water-in-itself), and Pluto (how ever we describe it), and everything else, did not exist before humans described them? Yours is the 'burden', not mine.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

The way VA's description of science operates:
How do we know a science fact? We ask "science".
How does "science" know science facts? Ask scientists.
How do scientists know science facts? Ask scientists.

He doesn't allow for any need to look at the actual world.
He discusses nothing but bandwagon credibility.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I don't understand Veritas mental model of reality at all. How did someone discover the existence of atoms or chemicals or H2O or Pluto, if the thing they discovered was not there already to be discovered?

Did someone invent Pluto, and then find it? Could they have just invented a different planet to find, in a different place in the solar system?

I feel like this is a language game. Like there's some sort of confusion between the thing, and the name of the thing. Or there's some sort of confusion between the map and the territory. Something like that. But it's hard to be sure what's really going on in VAs mind here
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

He expressed doubt that H2O existed before its discovery - does he also doubt that it exists now, after its discovery? Is this a case of "nothing that we think exists actually exists"? Or something else?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:57 pm He expressed doubt that H2O existed before its discovery - does he also doubt that it exists now, after its discovery? Is this a case of "nothing that we think exists actually exists"? Or something else?
It's really good we discovered (meaning, created) water. Because we need it in our cells. Whew. Thank God we reverse grandfathered it.

More interesting is at what moment did humans start making reality. Homo erectus? At some point humans had sufficient consciousness to create stuff by looking at it. And we looked so hard at things we created fossils of creatues that never existed.

Like dinosaurs. What did we perceive that led to us making fossils of species that never existed.

Man, it's lovely being God.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 7:20 am VA
Prove that H2O-in-itself didn't exist as real by itself before it emerged as a fact entangled with the human conditions as conditioned within a credible chemistry framework and system of knowledge.
Don't be a coward with that sort of counter.

You are the one who is claiming H2O existed prior to its emergence from the scientific FSK independent of any entanglement with the human conditions.
Thus the onus of proof [justification] is on you.

Here is a clue for you re the Astronomical FSK re the fact of Pluto;
Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune. It was the first object discovered in the Kuiper belt and remains the largest known body in that area.

After Pluto was discovered in 1930, it was declared the ninth planet from the Sun.

However, beginning in the 1990s, its status as a planet was questioned following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc, including the dwarf planet Eris, leading the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 2006 to define the term planet formally—excluding Pluto and reclassifying it as a dwarf planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
You will note the astronomical fact from the astronomical FSK changed.
There is no question of right or wrong, true or false in this case.
Whatever is a fact is conditioned by the respective FSK.
In this case, the fact of Pluto as in 2006 is conditioned by the astronomical FSK.

It is the same with the fact of H20 as conditioned by the Chemistry FSK.
The fact of H20 did not emerge until its emergence via the entanglement of the Chemistry FSK with the human conditions.

Since you are making the positive claim, you have to prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?

Btw, kissing the early-Wittgenstein ass won't help you since W abandon those kindergartenish thoughts of the Tratatus in his later years.
My counter-question was a tease. Try these instead. See if you can wriggle out of them as well.

1 What is water-in-itself, and why is it different from water?
2 (To echo IWP) What empirical evidence do you have for the claim that water (or water-in-itself), and Pluto (how ever we describe it), and everything else, did not exist before humans described them? Yours is the 'burden', not mine.
1. Rather you should explain what is water-in-itself or water-by-itself, i.e. water existing independent of the human conditions.

You claimed above;
  • PH: The chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist, independently, before we described it as 'H2O'.
    And it would have been what it is even if it had never been described through the whole history of the universe.
Unfortunately I have to repeat again, i.e. there are two aspects to the above,
1. The emergence of water = H20 as conditioned to the Chemistry FSK,
2. The subsequent description of 'water = H20'.

How can you state "the chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist" without reference [relative and conditioned] to the Chemistry FSK which is constructed by the Chemists community and maintained by them?
Since that emergence is relative and conditioned to the Chemistry FSK, the reality and realization of water=H20 cannot be independent of the human condition.

I have already indicated your 'that fact' is also the fact-in-itself from the early-Wittgenstein which is from his linguistic FSK.

What is water?
There are many perspectives to "what is water".
1. There is the common sense and conventional sense of 'that' liquid that is ordinarily recognized as 'water' via ordinary empirical observation without proper verification and justification. As such this is not water-in-itself but water-by-the-common-sense-FSK which is not very realistic. Other similar clear liquids could be mistaken as 'water'.

2. The most credible claim of 'what is water' is empirical evidences verified and justified by the Chemistry FSK.
2 What empirical evidence do you have for the claim that water (or water-in-itself), and Pluto (how ever we describe it), and everything else, did not exist before humans described them? Yours is the 'burden', not mine.
This is strawmaning.

I repeat, there are two aspects to the above,
1. The emergence of water = H20 as conditioned to the Chemistry FSK,
2. The subsequent description of 'water = H20'.

Empirical evidence for 'water-in-itself' is an oxymoron.
Empirical evidences will need to be processed via a FSK, thus water-via-FSK cannot be water-in-itself.

You are the one who is claiming water-in-itself, i.e. it exists [independently] even if there are no empirical evidence [human-based] for its existence.

Thus my OP, prove water=H2O exists [independently] even if there are no empirical evidence [human-based] for its existence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:57 pm He expressed doubt that H2O existed before its discovery - does he also doubt that it exists now, after its discovery? Is this a case of "nothing that we think exists actually exists"? Or something else?
Unfortunately you do not understand my points.

My points are;
1. Water=H20 exists as an EMERGENCE which is conditioned upon a specific FSK [framework and system of knowledge FSK or reality FSR].

2. Water=H2O is an emergence of the common sense FSK, the scientific FSK and the Chemistry FSK.

3. As such any claim of water=H20 must imperatively be conditioned, linked and qualified to various FSK, i.e. the Chemistry being the most credible.

4. Water=H20 cannot be claimed to have pre-existed awaiting discovery independent of any FSK.

If you insists otherwise, demonstrate or justify how Water=H20 had pre-existed awaiting discovery independent of any FSK, i.e. human conditions accumulated since humans first emerged and the Big Bang.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:36 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:58 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:13 am And this is false. The chemical constitution of water (that fact) did exist, independently, before we described it as 'H2O'. And it would have been what it is even if it had never been described through the whole history of the universe. You're just wrong. We've invented different ways to describe reality. But we didn't invent the reality that we describe.

You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
Your above is too kindergartenish [philosophically]. I will agree with your points above if both of us are confined to a kindergarten class [philosophically] because it is so obvious from that limited perspective.

BUT from a more refined level of philosophical consideration, there is no real 'water-in-itself' nor 'H2O-in-itself'.
I have already gone through this argument a 'million' times already.

If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?

I have already explained a 'million' times the concept of emergence and gave clues of how emergence emerges in this analogy, i.e. the hollow mask illusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01LMFFpAWYM
Note how the real hollow mask becomes a 'real' 3D shape whenever your human conditions entangle with it. You just cannot perceive the real hollow mask no matter how hard you try.
Note this is just a clue to understanding what is emergence of reality in entanglement with the human conditions.
You're saying that facts 'emerge' only when there's a framework and system of knowledge to describe them. And that's false. It's false. FALSE.
There you go again with your 'describe' rhetoric and strawman. Note I never mentioned 'ONLY' but rather 'conditioned' which is a more complex matter.
Your points above are merely childish-kindergartenish cries and are merely noises relative to higher philosophical deliberations.

Note the above clue, the hollow-concave mask ONLY appear to be 3D-convex when it entangles with the human conditions of perceptions.
Thereafter one will describes that "real" appearance.
So there are two independent process, i.e.
1. The Emergence process
2. The description of what emerged.

Principle:
1. All facts emerged as conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] or reality [FSR].

What you are totally ignorant is the concept of emergence which is most realistic to what is real of reality.

Otherwise, repeat;
If you are still insisting, prove, demonstrate and explain 'water-in-itself' or 'H2O-in-itself' exist as real by themselves?
The fact that water is H2O didn't 'emerge' when humans described it. It always was and will be H2O. And that comes from the empirical evidence that you paradoxically say we can and should rely on - the evidence that makes chemistry a credible source of knowledge.

I can't believe you really think there was nothing before humans turned up to describe reality - that reality emerged only when that happened. Are you on drugs?
Strawmanning again!
I keep telling you, don't make reference to 'describe reality' but you keep doing it.
It is this habituated error that you need to "know thyself" to understand why you have this compulsive disorder for this habit.

There are the past existence and events [dinosaurs, etc.] in time which is seemingly obvious but that is upon the History FSK. Note a FSK is constructed and sustained by humans.

Note my claim has always been this;
Whenever you claim anything exists, it must always be conditioned to specific FSK be is common sense, conventional sense or some specialized FSK.

You cannot claim something exists in-itself independent of a FSK, i.e. basically the human conditions.
For thousands of years people has been trying to making this metaphysical realism claim, i.e. there are things existing before and independent of human conditions and they have failed, thus the shift in paradigm by Kant with his Copernican Revolution which is the more realistic sense of reality.

In you insist then,
justify something can exists in-itself independent of a FSK, i.e. basically the human conditions.
you will not you can only make noises with this.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Age »

Prove water, or H2O, can exist without a contemplating and thinking being.

If you can not do this, then does that mean water, or H2O, exists 'in itself'?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:57 pm He expressed doubt that H2O existed before its discovery - does he also doubt that it exists now, after its discovery? Is this a case of "nothing that we think exists actually exists"? Or something else?
VA is never following the trail of the logic, he is always working backwards from the conclusion he wants and he doesn't much care about the mess he ends up with. The key to understanding his argument is typically to know what that conclusion is, from that info you can often disentangle the crazy to a certain extent.

In this case, he has an overhwelming desire to make his moral theory comparible as a "near peer" with the hard sciences (he ain't settling for no social science with this stuff). The impossible way to do this would be to actually break the is/ought barrier and render moral pronouncements empirically testable. The VA way works is instead to bring the sciences down to his level by placing an equivalent to the is/ought barrier in their way.

If he can break the role of empirical reason in the sciences and make them a matter of expert groupthink instead, then his plan to have a bunch of "experts" put together a table of goodness and badness units representing all of moral choice sems to him less stupid all of a sudden.

He doesn't care about accurately describing science any more than he cares about accurately describing morality, he only cares about desribing the two things as similar to each other.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: PH: Prove H2O-in-itself exists as Real by Itself?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:23 am
I see, perhaps I should stop trying to understand his position then. I'm still left with all sorts of questions about how he thinks the world works, like, if someone digs in the ground and finds dinosaur bones, were the dinosaur bones not there before the digging? Were they only there after someone decided they were there? Are people materialising findings by some magical mind force? Is there any reality, to him, that is not dependent on human thought, but that humans may "discover" and interact with?

It still feels like he's just saying "nothing, at all, is real ever".
Post Reply