What is a Fact?

[surreptitious57]

Something that is deemed factual in one framework for one purpose may or may not be a factual in another framework for a different purpose

And we sure have ourselves two frameworks on the table. One that treats time as absolute and one that treats time as relative

There is another framework too : one that treats knowledge as incomplete
For something can only become a fact when it is actually known to be one

So there are potential facts that are unknown because the relevant knowledge with regard to them is not available at that time
Because of the finite capability of both the human brain and information processing machines knowledge can never be absolute

All facts concerning the observable physical world are subject to temporal consideration
For example before I969 it was a fact that no human being had ever walked on the moon
But after I969 this was no longer true and so the previous fact had to therefore be modified in order to accommodate new knowledge
So it would now be restated as no human being had ever walked on the moon before I969 but previously that date was not necessary

Facts are not automatically set in stone for all of time - some may be but not all of them - for they can be subject to change any time
So a fact is only something that is true till it has been falsified by new knowledge that was previously unknown at that particular time

[surreptitious57]

And when you keep ignoring time you cant coherently say anything about anything in this universe

You can say things that are true but you cannot say things that are absolutely true for that could be false
Everything is in a constant state of motion and so new facts will be known while old ones will be falsified

[Skepdick]

You can say things that are true but you cannot say things that are absolutely true for that could be false
Everything is in a constant state of motion and so new facts will be known while old ones will be falsified

You can say things that are sufficiently true for some particular purpose, but the "sufficiency" of your truth is determined by whether you accomplished your objective or not.

If the purpose of truth is to describe the state of affairs, then how do you determine whether you have sufficiently described the state of affairs?

[surreptitious57]

And you keep insisting that facts and time are separate issues

Maybe facts not affected by time such as mathematical ones because mathematics is abstract not real ?
For example the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle will always be pi will it not ?

[surreptitious57]

If the purpose of truth is to describe the state of affairs then how do you determine whether you have sufficiently described the state of affairs ?

You cannot make such a claim as knowledge of a particular state of affairs may not be complete
The only claim that can be made is that only knowledge actually known at the time can be used
As the future has to become the present before any potential knowledge from it can be acquired

[surreptitious57]

You can say things that are sufficiently true for some particular purpose but the sufficiency of your truth is determined
by whether you accomplished your objective

My objective is to be as truthful as possible with all of the relevant available knowledge that I may possess at any time
For I cannot determine truth based upon speculation about future potential knowledge even if that speculation is true

[Skepdick]

My objective is to be as truthful as possible with all of the relevant available knowledge that I may possess at any time
For I cannot determine truth based upon speculation about future potential knowledge even if that speculation is true

As truthful as possible for what purpose?

[surreptitious57]

Empirical facts are truth statements about the observable world
But because the observable world changes then logically so too must facts about the observable world
And so it makes zero sense to treat facts as absolute for all of time as time will actually change them

[surreptitious57]

My objective is to be as truthful as possible with all of the relevant available knowledge that I may possess at any time
For I cannot determine truth based upon speculation about future potential knowledge even if that speculation is true

As truthful as possible for what purpose ?

For the purpose of knowledge acquisition
For the purpose of satisfying my curiosity

[Skepdick]

For the purpose of knowledge acquisition
For the purpose of satisfying my curiosity

OK, so how much truth/knowledge will satisfy your curiosity?

[surreptitious57]

so how much truth / knowledge will satisfy your curiosity ?

Enough to keep me mentally active for the remainder of my life
As there is significantly more than that then it is not a problem

[Skepdick]

Enough to keep me mentally active for the remainder of my life

You can't find better ways to do that?

[surreptitious57]

You cant find better ways to do that ?

Why would I need to find better ways to do it ?
For is not the way that I am doing it just right ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your argument was in such blatant bad faith that it cannot be subject to a strawman as nothing could weaken your claim. Through either laziness, dishonesty or outrageous stupidity you you took his definite description of a specific today and swapped it for an indefinite nonspecific today.

Precisely moron. Define "today" and "yesterday'.

You keep tripping up over temporal paradoxes because your logic doesn't do time.
And when you keep ignoring time, you can't coherently say anything about anything in this universe.

Agree.

Something that is deemed "factual" in one framework for one purpose, may or may not be a "factual" in another framework for a different purpose.

And we sure have ourselves two frameworks on the table. One that treats time as absolute and one that treats time as relative.

That which you are calling "facts" is history. Memories. Nothing more. They may have HAPPENED (past tense) they are no longer HAPPENING (present tense).

That is the fact!

What is fact is relative to the specified Framework and System of Knowledge.

There is no such thing as a fact-in-itself or a referent-in-itself, both fact and referent are conditioned upon a specific model of reality represented by its Framework and System of Knowledge. Science is such a specific Framework and System of Knowledge

What the rest of those ignoramus is they do not qualify the Framework and System and Knowledge they are grounding on.
What they relied upon is the logico-linguistic Framework and System which is a very superficial in representation of reality.

What is fact always entangles with a referent [the supposed real thing or state-of-affairs].
Those ignoramus assume the 'referent'-of-the-fact, is absolute but it is not.

There is no such thing as a fact-in-itself or a referent-in-itself, both fact and referent are conditioned upon a specific model of reality.

[Skepdick]

Your argument was in such blatant bad faith that it cannot be subject to a strawman as nothing could weaken your claim. Through either laziness, dishonesty or outrageous stupidity you you took his definite description of a specific today and swapped it for an indefinite nonspecific today.

Precisely moron. Define "today" and "yesterday'.

You keep tripping up over temporal paradoxes because your logic doesn't do time.
And when you keep ignoring time, you can't coherently say anything about anything in this universe.

Agree.

Something that is deemed "factual" in one framework for one purpose, may or may not be a "factual" in another framework for a different purpose.

And we sure have ourselves two frameworks on the table. One that treats time as absolute and one that treats time as relative.

That which you are calling "facts" is history. Memories. Nothing more. They may have HAPPENED (past tense) they are no longer HAPPENING (present tense).

That is the fact!

What is fact is relative to the specified Framework and System of Knowledge.

There is no such thing as a fact-in-itself or a referent-in-itself, both fact and referent are conditioned upon a specific model of reality represented by its Framework and System of Knowledge. Science is such a specific Framework and System of Knowledge

What the rest of those ignoramus is they do not qualify the Framework and System and Knowledge they are grounding on.
What they relied upon is the logico-linguistic Framework and System which is a very superficial in representation of reality.

What is fact always entangles with a referent [the supposed real thing or state-of-affairs].
Those ignoramus assume the 'referent'-of-the-fact, is absolute but it is not.

There is no such thing as a fact-in-itself or a referent-in-itself, both fact and referent are conditioned upon a specific model of reality.

That's pretty much what Model-dependent realists say.