Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 9:22 amScience is a good framework for ontology, broadly speaking metaphysics. Many things that confused pre-scientific cultures no longer bother the average person in the modern world. However, I've not encountered a scientific argument vis-à-vis the moon as relevant to the thread. I don't think the moon exists when we're not looking at it. Why should it?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:54 amExistence is not a predicate.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:55 am
How very fascinating. The 3D mask illusion is most apropos. How do we know elephants exist and dragons don't?
As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.
As such whatever exists & is real must be predicated or conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality[FSR].
As such whatever exists is scientific real is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
At present the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable thus the most realistic and objective on a conditional basis [not absolutely]; the scientific FSK is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other FSKs.
As such, when one claims 'elephants exist' we must establish the claim is based on what FSK. If that is claim upon the science-biology-FSK then we can a high confidence level that it is true. see,
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
If someone claim dragons exist, we have to establish what FSK is he relying upon. If it is a Harry Potter FSK, we know it is fiction and dragons don't exists as real in the scientific basis.
If someone insists dragons exist as real, then they have to subject their existence of dragons via the scientific FSK to achieve credibility and reliability for their claims.
I am not too comfortable with the term 'ontology' as it is commonly directed to the ontological God and Philosophical Realism.In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
I believe is sufficient to state, whatever the claim of existence, becoming, and reality, they must be conditioned to a specific FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable; which is used as a standard to evaluate all other FSKS.
We can still claim the "The Moon Does Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" BUT it must be qualified to the relevant FSK, e.g. the Newtonian, Einsteinian, other conventional FSK.
It cannot be an absolute, unqualified, unconditional claim.
This claim of reality is crude and not refined.
At a more refined level of reality, "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" but nevertheless it is conditioned upon the most refined scientific FSK at present, i.e. the science-QM-FSK.
When we accept the cruder reality such "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It", then we are opening up for the absolute claims of Philosophical Realism [mind-independent ontology] and theism [independent ontological God].
Philosophical Realism and the independent ontological God both hinder moral progress.
Philosophical Realists like Peter Holmes and gang insist all facts are mind-independent. Since morality is mind-dependent, objective moral facts do not exist.
Without objective facts, there is no objective moral facts to drive moral progress efficiently.
Theists believe there is the mind-independent ontological God which deliver immutable moral commands via its messenger, prophets or son. As such when these 'moral' commands are actually 'evil laden' they cannot be changed since they are immutable.
The scientific -QM reality [proven] that "The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It" means, whatever is reality, it is ultimately grounded to the human conditions.
Since reality is tied to the human conditions, there is loads of room for improvements given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge, AI and various technologies to create a shared-reality.