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.