Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

[FlashDangerpants]

Incompatible facts outside of the reach of experimental capabilities are NOT problematic!
If it can be CONCEPTUALLY resolved it needs not be EMPIRICALLY resolved.

I am sure this will disappoint FlashDangerdork, because that's now how facts are supposed to work!!!

Not at all problematic for me. If the claimed facts are not mutually exclusive then they are compatible.

If Veritas's claimed fact is that it is absolutely immoral to take a human life (with a PERIOD at the end)
And if Henry's claimed fact is that it is entirely moral to take a life in revenge (period optional), then each of these facts implicitly claims the other to be wrong.
Those are mutually exclusive "facts" and both cannot be correct.

There was a topic of discussion prior to you making this all about you again.

[Skepdick]

Not at all problematic for me. If the claimed facts are not mutually exclusive then they are compatible.

Uh...

GR says time is relative.
QFT says time is absolute.

Those are EMPIRICALLY exclusive AND (BUT?) CONCEPTUALLY compatible facts.

You gotta quit that shit. Uwot is trying to put me in my place, you are making him look bad.

If Veritas's claimed fact is that it is absolutely immoral to take a human life (with a PERIOD at the end)
And if Henry's claimed fact is that it is entirely moral to take a life in revenge (period optional), then each of these facts implicitly claims the other to be wrong.
Those are mutually exclusive "facts" and both cannot be correct.

They can both be correct! In different contexts.

Country A allows revenge killings.
Country B doesn't.

There. fixed it for you. What was so hard?

There was a topic of discussion prior to you making this all about you again.

Don't flatter yourself, darling. I don't matter. Your arguments are bullshit.

[FlashDangerpants]

Not at all problematic for me. If the claimed facts are not mutually exclusive then they are compatible.

Uh...

GR says time is relative.
QFT says time is absolute.

Those are mutually exclusive AND compatible.

Oh, well in that case they obcviously can't be CONCEPTUALLY resolved.

If Veritas's claimed fact is that it is absolutely immoral to take a human life (with a PERIOD at the end)
And if Henry's claimed fact is that it is entirely moral to take a life in revenge (period optional), then each of these facts implicitly claims the other to be wrong.
Those are mutually exclusive "facts" and both cannot be correct.

They can both be correct! In different contexts.

Country A allows revenge killings.
Country B doesn't.

There. fixed it for you. What was so hard?

That will be fun for me. I wonder if Henry and Veritas want their fact claims to be circumscribed in such fashion.

[Skepdick]

Oh, well in that case they obcviously can't be CONCEPTUALLY resolved.

Did you read it? Did you even get as far as "Our intention, as is the case for gedanken experiments, is to take distinctive features from known physical theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity, in this case) and explore their mutual consistency in a particular physical scenario. We believe, based on the role gedanken experiments played in the early days of quantum mechanics and relativity, that such considerations can shed light on regimes for which there is no complete physical theory and can provide useful insights into the physical effects to be expected at regimes that are not within the reach of current experimental capabilities."

You two need to figure out if you agree or disagree with each other.

Uwot keeps defending you - you keep making it harder for him to do so. It's hilarious!

I mean - he is literally trying to throw rocks at me for giving him a paper that (he thinks) CONCEPTUALLY resolves EMPIRICALLY UNRESOLVABLE problems.

[uwot]

What is unoriginal or difficult is when you agree with me in one sentence (context-free facts don't exist) and then in the very next you insist that they do...

It's not me Skepdick, it's you. The problem is your rotten comprehension. Here's an example:

Well you can insist that truth is simply a function of language, while I am perfectly well aware any interpretation of phenomena is underdetermined, it is reasonable to infer that some state of affairs that produces the phenomena obtains.

I insist that I have no idea what "truth" is. "Some state of affairs that produces the phenomena obtains".

That doesn't sound underdetermined to me. That sounds undetermined.

I'm happy to go with undetermined, not least because at no point did I imply it was underdetermined.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh, well in that case they obcviously can't be CONCEPTUALLY resolved.

Did you read it? Did you even get as far as "Our intention, as is the case for gedanken experiments, is to take distinctive features from known physical theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity, in this case) and explore their mutual consistency in a particular physical scenario. We believe, based on the role gedanken experiments played in the early days of quantum mechanics and relativity, that such considerations can shed light on regimes for which there is no complete physical theory and can provide useful insights into the physical effects to be expected at regimes that are not within the reach of current experimental capabilities."

You two need to figure out if you agree or disagree with each other.

Uwot keeps defending you - you keep making it harder for him to do so. It's hilarious!

Well uwot seems to understand the thing you are describing which I clearly don't. As far as I can see, you appear to be misrepresenting them as mutually exclusive claims (each amounting to a claim that the other is mistaken) when the reality of quantum physiscs doesn't seem to really work like that.

Henry and Veristas's claims clearly do though. Each requires that the other is false. Your quantum trick isn't applicable and you know it, you just like being a dick.

[Skepdick]

It's not me Skepdick, it's you. The problem is your rotten comprehension.

I promise you it's not me! I subscribe to the axiom of unrestricted comprehension.

I have such low standards I am willing to overlook contradictions.

I'm happy to go with undetermined, not least because at no point did I imply it was underdetermined.

Like... on the one hand you say every interpretation is underdetermined, and on the other hand you say "something's going on, but we don't know what the something is" - that's undetermined.

Seems to me that there is a middle ground between underdetermination and undetermination.

[Skepdick]

As far as I can see, you appear to be misrepresenting them as mutually exclusive claims.

Dude! I am not making ANY assertions about them. I am presenting them EXACTLY as physicists present them. My judgment is suspended.

I am dead serious when I ask you this question: can you tell the difference between your representation and my representation?

YOU are the one who claims they are mutually exclusive.
I am the one who doesn't think their apparent mutual exclusivity entails incompatibility - it just a paradox. A contradiction - it's inconsequential.

I am the one saying that they are BOTH factual WITHIN their context.
Veritas is the one saying that facts exist WITHIN systems.
Henry is the one agreeing with me when I say lack of consensus doesn't entail lack of factuality.

You are the asshole insisting that incompatible facts need be resolved across contextual divides.

Your quantum trick isn't applicable and you know it, you just like being a dick.

You just fucking admitted it's applicable! YOU said that it can't be CONCEPTUALLY resolved.

You were also the one who insisted that incompatible facts can be empirically resolved via demonstration.

I am waiting for the empirical/demonstrative resolution between GR and QFT.

Alternatively, I'll take a concession that "facts" don't work the way you claim they do.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am the one saying that they are BOTH factual WITHIN their context.

Then they are concpetually resolved, their claims are context bounded, and thus they don't amount to a claim the other is false in its own context.

IFF Veritas and Henry beleive their moral fact claims are similarly context bounded, then they will stop arguing that there isn't some standard messy context where morality is not fact at all.

Also they will accept some rule whereby, in Vertias's case all killing is wrong but only if viewed in such and such a manner, while otherwise revenge killing is ok.

Otherwise, they understand the concpet of a fact in the normal way.
You do as well, when you arent lying to yourself, you believe I am wrong entirely, not that I am wrong in some limited context.

[Skepdick]

Then they are concpetually resolved, their claims are context bounded, and thus they don't amount to a claim the other is false in its own context.

But they DO amount to a claim that the other is false in a universal context!

From the lens of classical logic Time is either absolute or it's relative. It can't be both! Good thing I am not a classical logician. But you are!

It's only fair that I ask of you the same that you ask of Veritas and Henry,
So as per your insistence that demonstrations can resolve factual incompatibility - - either demonstrate that the absoluteness of time is wrong, or the relativity of time is wrong.

Here. Let me refresh your memory.

If your facts don't demonstrate that Vertical Octopus is clearly wrong, then we have a problem because that's pretty much what facts are for, showing what we should hold as true and false.

IFF Veritas and Henry beleive their moral fact claims are similarly context bounded, then they will stop arguing that there isn't some standard messy context where morality is not fact at all.

Isn't that precisely the point Veritas is making all along?

Asserting the factuality of a claim outside the bounds of its context/system is nonsensical.

It's precisely the problem of asserting the absoluteness of time through the relative lens of GR!

Also they will accept some rule whereby, in Vertias's case all killing is wrong but only if viewed in such and such a manner, while otherwise revenge killing is ok.

Yes. It's called a reference frame in physics. "objectivity" is only possible IF all observers agree upon some initial values in some abstract reference frame.

That is (as Veritas insists) you have to do your measurements WITHIN a system/framework. Consensus across systems is not possible.

You know this, right? That's why we have legal systems within which we determine "guilt" "crime" "wrongness" and all such stuff.

Otherwise, they understand the concpet of a fact in the normal way.

Which way is the 'normal way'?!?

Is that the contextual way, or the context-free (universal?) way? Or all the equivocations in between?

You do as well, when you arent lying to yourself, you believe I am wrong entirely, not that I am wrong in some limited context.

I am sure that you can't explain what you mean by "wrong" beyond some normative ideal that you just never seem to be able to express.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then they are concpetually resolved, their claims are context bounded, and thus they don't amount to a claim the other is false in its own context.

But they DO amount to a claim that the other is false in a universal context!

From the lens of classical logic Time is either absolute or it's relative. It can't be both!

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are accurately representing them.
Either one of them is right in the universal context, or or both of them are wrong and the reality presumably is something more complicated than that narrative suggests.
End of.

It's only fair that I ask of you the same that you ask of Veritas and Henry,
So as per your insistence that demonstrations can resolve factual incompatibility - - either demonstrate that the absoluteness of time is wrong, or the relativity of time is wrong.

Here. Let me refresh your memory.

If your facts don't demonstrate that Vertical Octopus is clearly wrong, then we have a problem because that's pretty much what facts are for, showing what we should hold as true and false.

I have no position on the subject of quantum anything at all. It's not my field, the experts in that field will just have to work it out. They are not succeeding as of yet if they actually hold that two things which deny each other as truth are both true. I'm sure if we give them some time they will sort out that mess, and I am certain they don't have any interest in my assistance, or yours.

IFF Veritas and Henry beleive their moral fact claims are similarly context bounded, then they will stop arguing that there isn't some standard messy context where morality is not fact at all.

Isn't that precisely the point Veritas is making all along?

Asserting the factuality of a claim outside the bounds of its context/system is nonsensical.

It's precisely the problem of asserting the absoluteness of time through the relative lens of GR!

He doesn't seem to think so. He thinks his thing is "morality-proper", he's very into that phrase. I think his morality-proper idea is roughly equivalent to Genuine American Cheese, a product so dubious it must actively assert its claim to legitimacy otherwise nobody would imagine it was any such thing.

Also they will accept some rule whereby, in Vertias's case all killing is wrong but only if viewed in such and such a manner, while otherwise revenge killing is ok.

Yes. It's called a reference frame in physics. "objectivity" is only possible IF all observers agree upon some initial values in some abstract reference frame.

That is (as Veritas insists) you have to do your measurements WITHIN a system/framework. Consensus across systems is not possible.

You know this, right? That's why we have legal systems within which we determine "guilt" "crime" "wrongness" and all such stuff.

Yes. As soon as the people wielding "moral fact" at me accept this downgrade, and quit pretending they are encompassing the actual concpet of morality as it operates within our society. When they admit they are engaged in a act of replacement not of description, then we are cool. They can stop calling it 'moral fact' and start calling it what it is "axiology" or whatever they want their new thing - that is distinct from the social practices we call morality, but perhaps is inspired by that realm - to be called, and then we are done here.

[Skepdick]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are accurately representing them.
Either one of them is right in the universal context, or or both of them are wrong and the reality presumably is something more complicated than that narrative suggests.
End of.

Why are you lying to yourself?

that's pretty much what facts are for, showing what we should hold as true and false.

I want to know what the facts are! I want to know what I should hold as true!

Is time absolute or relative?

As per your claim. Please use the facts at your disposal to show me truth.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is time absolute or relative?

I don't know.

[Skepdick]

I don't know.

So are they facts or not?

Scientists call them facts... are you hesitating?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't know.

So are they facts or not?

Scientists call them facts... are you hesitating?

I've given you all the answers I am able to in this subject of quantumness and quantum weirdness. I am not remotely equipped to go any further, but nor am I claiming that I can. This trap you think you have me in is toothless. I couldn't care less whether one quantum description of time is more or less right than the other, and I have no motive to hide that truth from you.

I've told you simple things about how the concept of facts operates, they are accurately descriptive of the thing I am describing which is a totally standard concept that we all use. If you are involved in some special weirdness where the normal concept of fact doesn't work properly, that's just not the big 300 IQ problem you think it is. Fact in that context can become a local term of art, meaning something similar to but distinct from in practise that which fact means conversationally. Or it can just be replaced by whatever works in that context in its place, which I would recommend if the local use for it is so contradictory to the standard one that it blocks communication or consistently creates false expectations.

There's nothing valuable to mine in this line of inquiry, our existing conceptual frameworks can handle all of this stuff and have done for thousands of years across many languages.

If Veritas wants to have his own term of art uses for both morality and for fact, he is entirely welcome to declare these differences from the standard concepts. But then we are done with him, morality and fact are just concepts he should move on from and replace with his own, because his double misuse is misleading.